linux-kernel - Re: iio/accel/stk8312: Improve unlocking of a mutex in two functions

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <82e2fde9-2b35-be54-4614-977fc2894da1@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:37:04 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: iio/accel/stk8312: Improve unlocking of a mutex in two functions

>> But I proposed an other source code layout for useful reasons.
> 
> I think there is a (hidden) cost of having pure cleanup patches:
> they make backporting fixes harder (across the cleanup)

There the usual software development consequences to consider
if you dare to change the source code at all.


> stylistic changes must have a clear benefit, readability is subjective, 
> consistency per se doesn't buy anything

There are also different opinions involved.


> the discussion how code should be written in the first place is separate
> from the discussion what is worth fixing up lateron (IMHO)

Are you looking for a corresponding agreement?

Regards,
Markus