linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] block: Change to use DEFINE_SHOW

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]

Date:   Sat, 1 Dec 2018 11:38:48 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Frank Lee <tiny.windzz@...il.com>
Cc:     ed.cashin@....org, philipp.reisner@...bit.com,
        Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, josh.h.morris@...ibm.com,
        pjk1939@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, nbd@...er.debian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: Change to use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro

On 12/1/18 11:31 AM, Frank Lee wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 2:11 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/1/18 7:24 AM, Yangtao Li wrote:
>>> Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> changes in v2:
>>> -Modify some function names to avoid compilation errors
>>
>> The fact that your previous patch didn't even compile doesn't fill me
>> with a lot of confidence in the amount of diligence and testing
>> you apply to your patches.
>>
>> Why would you send something out that you didn't even compile?
>>
>> --
>> Jens Axboe
>>
> These changes are the same and only require a small change.
> Most of the changes are fine, so it's a bit negligent.

When someone is sending a patch for inclusion, at the very minimum
I expect it to have been compiled, and preferably tested too. Doesn't
matter how small the change is, even a one-liner should go through that.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of changes like this. It completely
hides what is going on for someone reading the code, and it's not
like there's a win on code size for example. The only win seems to
be that driver writes can't mess it up, which is a nice benefit.

-- 
Jens Axboe