linux-kernel - Re: mmc: vub300: Use common code in __download_offload

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

Message-ID: <b809399c-6bd0-5a39-d2b9-442f7d008e72@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:15:38 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Tony Olech <tony.olech@...ndigitalsystems.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mmc: vub300: Use common code in __download_offload_pseudocode()

>>> What's the advantage of this patch?  The new code seems more complicated
>>> to me and GCC automatically reuses duplicate constant strings so there
>>> is no memory savings.
>>
>> It looked to me that the error path got a bit cleaner. However, I
>> guess it's matter of taste.
>>
>> If you insist, I can drop it.
> 
> I'm on the kernel-janitors list so I am CC'd on all of Markus's patches.

Do you want that I omit this address from the list of recipients?

> It's not my code and I'm tired of being the anti-Markus guy

Interesting …

But I got the impression that this special relationship resulted
also in a few useful side effects.

> so this patch is fine.

Thanks for another bit of acceptance.

> Markus has a tool that finds duplicate strings and he uses gotos
> to avoid them.

Yes. - The script which I am using for the semantic patch language
(Coccinelle software) can not only find this implementation detail
but also duplicate source code generally to some degree.

> I don't think duplicate strings are a problem

They can become an issue for further considerations if inappropriate
error messages were used for example.

There are more statement combinations which can be improved a bit more.

> or that it's a good idea to send over a hundred patches using this method.

The change acceptance is varying as usual.

> But many people have explained that to Markus already

I hope that my contributions can improve the affected software in some areas.

> and that's not the bigger picture which is about error handling and labels.
> What I like are labels that are necessary and self explanatory.

It seems that this is a topic where you got strong opinions about.

> You're reading along and you're like "what happens at the err" label?

Would you accept any further adjustments around questionable jump targets?

Regards,
Markus