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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 2 Dec 2018 02:58:57 +0800
From:   Frank Lee <tiny.windzz@...il.com>
To:     axboe@...nel.dk
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 Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 2:38 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> 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
>
Yeah,you are right.Can you review it?

Yours,
Yangtao