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:   Wed, 30 Aug 2017 22:56:54 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <>
To:     Martyn Welch <>,
        devel <>
Cc:     Aaron Sierra <>,
        Alessio Igor Bogani <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Augusto Mecking Caringi <>,
        Baoyou Xie <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Manohar Vanga <>,
        LKML <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] vme: tsi148: Improve 17 size determinations

>>>> @@ -2363,5 +2364,5 @@ static int tsi148_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>>>>              master_num--;
>>>>              tsi148_device->flush_image =
>>>> -                    kmalloc(sizeof(struct vme_master_resource), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +                    kmalloc(sizeof(*tsi148_device->flush_image), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> This line is now a tiny bit too long
>> Can you eventually tolerate a line length of 81 characters at such a source code place?
> I think there's some irony here. On the one hand you are submitting
> patches that correct coding style issues, on the other you are asking
> whether we can ignore the coding style...

I test somehow how strict you would like to handle the length limit there.

I imagine that the affected source code formatting could also become different
if the involved variable name would be shorter.

>> * It seems that you would not like to perform such a tweak yourself.
> To be honest, it is quicker and easier in this instance to do just that.

Interesting …

> So that's now done.

Thanks that you picked some of my ideas up.

> Patches now in my testing branch:

I am curious on how the shown change possibilities will evolve from
this repository.

>> * Do you expect a resend for the complete patch series?
> Unless the maintainer has commented that they have accepted patches x,
> y and z, then sending the entire series again is generally the right
> thing to do.

Would you like to respond further to Greg's comments (from 2017-08-26)
for this patch series?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists