linux-kernel - Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <80ae8328-5851-01b0-cb31-474f7baf1686@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Sat, 23 Dec 2017 08:12:21 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
        ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <ibm-acpi@....eng.br>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function
 implementations

>> Do you find the Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this case?
> 
> Leave those pr_ messages alone, please,

Have you got special software development concerns?


> unless they are really causing some sort of issue (which?).

Can the code be redundant here?


> Doing it just for "compliance" with a doc isn't nearly good enough reason.

Do you give only a low value to coding style guidelines in this use case?

Regards,
Markus