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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2017 11:10:36 +0200
From:   Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Xie Qirong <cheerx1994@...il.com>,
        Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
        Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: btcoex: replace init_timer with setup_timer

On 5/12/2017 10:54 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> writes:
> 
>> On 5/12/2017 10:19 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Xie Qirong <cheerx1994@...il.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> The combination of init_timer and setting up the data and function field
>>>> manually is equivalent to calling setup_timer(). This is an api
>>>> consolidation only and improves readability.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xie Qirong <cheerx1994@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>    setup_timer.cocci suggested the following improvement:
>>>>    drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/btcoex.c:383:1-11: Use
>>>>    setup_timer function for function on line 384.
>>>>
>>>>    Patch was compile checked with: x86_64_defconfig + CONFIG_BRCMFMAC=y +
>>>>    CONFIG_BRCMFMAC_USB=y + CONFIG_BRCMFMAC_PCIE=y + CONFIG_BRCM_TRACING=y +
>>>>    CONFIG_BRCMDBG=y
>>>>
>>>>    Kernel version: 4.11.0 (localversion-next is next-20170512)
>>>
>>> How is this different from the first version?
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9709467/
>>
>> Hi Kalle,
>>
>> This is actually the third version. You are referring to the
>> not-specifically-named "v2" here, but how are you to know ;-)
> 
> Exactly :)
> 
>> This third version is the same as v1 on which I commented to put the
>> coccinelle output in the commit message. So I would still keep v2 if
>> nothing else changed in v3 apart from my Acked-by: tag.
> 
> Ok, but I can easily take v3 (ie. this one) so that you get credit ;)

If you add the coccinelle output in the commit message, ie. above the 
'---' that would be great. So for both you have to do additional stuff 
provided you find it useful to have the coccinelle output. :-p

Regards,
Arend

Powered by blists - more mailing lists