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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 16:21:08 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, peterz@...radead.org, edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp conflicts. was: [tip:x86/cleanups] x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable On 04/28/2018 12:16 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 4/27/18 5:13 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 04/27/2018 01:00 PM, tip-bot for Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> Commit-ID: 5f26c50143f58f256535bee8d93a105f36d4d2da >>> Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/5f26c50143f58f256535bee8d93a105f36d4d2da >>> Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> >>> AuthorDate: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:54:40 +0200 >>> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> >>> CommitDate: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:42:04 +0200 >>> >>> x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable >>> >>> So by chance I looked into x86 assembly in arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c and >>> noticed the weird and inconsistent comment style it mistakenly learned from >>> the networking code: >>> >>> /* Multi-line comment ... >>> * ... looks like this. >>> */ >>> [...] >>> No change in functionality. >> >> Thanks for the cleanup, looks fine to me! > > same here. thanks for the cleanup! > >>> ( In case this commit causes conflicts with pending development code >>> I'll be glad to help resolve any conflicts! ) >> >> Any objections if we would simply route this via bpf-next tree, otherwise >> this will indeed cause really ugly merge conflicts throughout the JIT with >> pending work. Since no one hollered I've cherry picked this into bpf-next tree so that upcoming BPF work can be rebased on top of this, thanks Ingo! > right. would be much better to route this patch via bpf-next. > Though all the changes are cleanups in comments I'm pretty sure > they will conflict with other changes we're doing. > > Ingo, > could you please drop this patch from tip tree and resend it to us? > I cannot find the original patch in any public mailing list. > Only in tip-bot notification. > > Personally I don't care whether bpf jit code uses networking > or non-networking style of comments, but will be happy to enforce > non-networking for this file in the future, since that seems to be the > preference. > > Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists