linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] ALSA: Fine-tuning for several 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <882a7baa-7c23-c60c-076f-73daa1753531@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:48:40 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Martin Koegler <martin.koegler@...llo.at>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] ALSA: Fine-tuning for several function
 implementations

> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:02:34 +0100
> 
> Some update suggestions were taken into account
> from static source code analysis.
> 
> Markus Elfring (7):
>   seq: Delete unnecessary checks in snd_seq_ioctl_query_subs()
>   seq: Delete unnecessary checks in snd_seq_ioctl_get_subscription()
>   seq: Delete unnecessary checks in snd_seq_ioctl_unsubscribe_port()
>   seq: Delete unnecessary checks in snd_seq_ioctl_subscribe_port()
>   seq: Adjust 16 function calls together with a variable assignment
>   dmasound_core: Move two assignments for the variable "ret" in state_open()
>   dmasound_core: Adjust six function calls together with a variable assignment
> 
>  sound/core/seq/seq_clientmgr.c     | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  sound/oss/dmasound/dmasound_core.c |  33 +++++---
>  2 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)

Are these update suggestions worth for another look?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/24/292

Regards,
Markus