lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:38:13 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <>
To:     Arend Van Spriel <>
cc:     Julia Lawall <>,
        Tahia Khan <>,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: renames
 struct tstrRSSI and its members u8Index, u8Full

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 'Arend Van Spriel' via outreachy-kernel wrote:

> On 23-2-2017 8:08, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> Thanks for the feedback Arend, I really appreciate it. I've decided to go with
> >> these changes in my follow-up patch request:
> >>
> >> - rename tstrRSSI to 'rssi_history_buffer' as Aren suggested since it makes the
> >> purpose of the struct clear
> >> - remove Hungarian notation from all tstrRSSI members' names
> >> - change type of u8Full to bool since it's only ever 1 or 0
> >> - change name of as8RSSI to 'samples' since this buffer is only ever used to
> >> compute an average, and the "rssi" prefix is implied by the struct's name
> >> - rename str_rssi to rssi_history in the network_info struct for clarity
> >>
> >> Since my reasoning for these changes deviates from just "renaming to
> >> avoid camel casing" (as in the original warning), would it still
> >> make sense to submit all this in a single patch? I know my commit message
> >> needs to change but I wonder if this is too much detail.
> >
> > I would strongly suggest not to do it all in a single patch.  Even if these
> > changes are not very complicated conceptually, there is always a chance of
> > doing things wrong.  Taking the problems one by one will improve the chance
> > that the result is correct.  Also, the results will be easier for you and
> > others to review if each patch only does one thing.  And easier to revert
> > if needed later if something goes wrong.
> It is all related to cleaning up stuff in a single struct which I
> consider "one thing" here. To me it looks a bit silly if you rename one
> struct member when it is obvious that the other two need to be renamed
> as well. The only somewhat sensible split I see here is: 1) rename the
> struct itself, 2) rename the struct members, and 3) rename str_rssi
> member in struct network_info.

OK.  I guess I mainly saw the change of type as being different.


> Regards,
> Arend
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> For more options, visit

Powered by blists - more mailing lists