linux-kernel - Re: [v2 0/3] Fix issues reported by Coccinelle

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: <0f2c34f5-7656-9a6f-7f86-6dd58c8f6ef7@web.de>
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:22:17 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Saiyam Doshi <saiyamdoshi.in@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 0/3] Fix issues reported by Coccinelle

>> * I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
>>   source code quality concerns.
>
> Not needed. I understand what is going on here.

I suggest to reconsider the interpretation of “ensurance”
after only a few source code places were adjusted.


>>> Changes in …
>>
>> Can such a prefix be omitted?
>
> Why? I think it makes sense?

Can the specification of a version identifier be occasionally
sufficient already?

Regards,
Markus