linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] pci: Re-use new dmi_get_bios

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: <20180226181943.GC25159@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:19:43 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] pci: Re-use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 03:27:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 15:40 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:59:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > ...instead of open coding its functionality.
> > 
> > Same comment about making the changelog complete, independent of the
> > subject.
> 
> Any suggestion how it would look like? (Same question for previous
> comment)

  PCI: Re-use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper

  Use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper instead of open-coding its
  functionality.

The usual document structure is something like:

  TITLE

  This abstract contains a summary of the entire document, in a few
  paragraphs of complete sentences.

Where "TITLE" makes sense all by itself, even without reading the
body, and "Body" is a complete statement that also makes sense all by
itself without having to read "TITLE" first.

Granted, it's trivial, but following the convention improves
readability slightly because it fits the reader's expectations.

When the body is "...instead of open coding its functionality", it's a
bit of a hiccup because I have to start over and look back up to the
title to re-read the thing as a whole.

Bjorn