linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/19] locking/lockdep: Change all print

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:   Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:28:01 +0800
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
        bvanassche@....org, ming.lei@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/19] locking/lockdep: Change all print_*() return
 type to void

Thanks for the review.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 17:45, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 16:57 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > Since none of the print_*() function's return value is necessary, change
> > their return type to void. No functional change.
> >
> > In cases where an invariable return value is used, this change slightly
> > improves readability, i.e.:
> []
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> []
> > @@ -1430,23 +1430,20 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list *src_entry,
> []
> > -static void
> > -print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src,
> > -                          struct held_lock *tgt,
> > -                          struct lock_list *prt)
> > +static void print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src,
> > +                                      struct held_lock *tgt,
> > +                                      struct lock_list *prt)
>
> trivia:
>
> This style change seems superfluous as many
> other existing functions use the previous style.

Those "many other" are kind of bizarre already in the context of that
file IMHO. So the change went to great lengths in #05 :)