linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] cdrom: factor out common open_for

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: <20191025104230.GN938@kitsune.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:42:30 +0200
From:   Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>,
        Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] cdrom: factor out common open_for_* code

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 07:39:08PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:50:14AM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > Then I will get complaints I do unrelated changes and it's hard to
> > review. The code gets removed later anyway.
> 
> If you refactor you you pretty much have a card blanche for the
> refactored code and the direct surroundings.

This is different from what other reviewers say:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1517245320.2687.14.camel@wdc.com/

Either way, this code is removed in a later patch so this discussion is
moot. It makes sense to have a bisection point here in case something
goes wrong but it is pointless to argue about the code structure
inherited from the previous revision.

Thanks

Michal