linux-kernel - Re: GPU-DRM-STI: Fine-tuning for some function implementations

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a4bfb464-ff72-5c9c-ab16-e48a9c88bbb9@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Sat, 6 May 2017 19:00:24 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@...com>,
        Vincent Abriou <vincent.abriou@...com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-STI: Fine-tuning for some function implementations

>> 1. I suggest to combine a few functions into fewer ones.
>>    * Do you spot any programming mistakes in these concrete cases?
> 
> Not in the patches I skimmed.

Thanks for such feedback.

> However, your history of breaking code tells me that there have been mistakes
> missed in the past.

I admit that I had my own share of software development hiccups. I would also
like to reduce them. But a probability remains that I will stumble on
various glitches as usual.

> As such, I'm not willing to take untested code from you that does not change
> functionality at the risk of breaking something that is currently working.

I imagine that the shown software refactoring will improve the affected
sequence outputs in useful ways, won't it?

> This is non-negotiable.

It seems that we have got different views around the ways to get to acceptable
final system test results.

> As I said before, if you test it, I'll consider it.

I got a few doubts for this information. If you find my software development
reputation so questionable, I assume that you would not trust any tests
that I would try out on my own.

> If you are unwilling to test your changes, I'm unwilling to apply them.

I guess that the desired willingness will depend on a test environment
which will be trusted by all involved parties. Other incentives might
also matter.

> I'm not interested in double checking all of your work, and fixing your bugs
> for no functional benefit.

Do you care for improvements in the implementation of logging functions?

> I find less value in these patches if they're from someone seemingly
> trying to rack up patch count.

I am picking special source code search patterns up.
The evolving development tools can point then hundreds of source files
out which contain similar update candidates.
I found also a few spelling weaknesses while I was looking around
in affected source code. These tools can also increase the awareness
for such change possibilities, can't they?

Regards,
Markus