linux-kernel - Re: Checkpatch being daft, Was: [PATCH -v2 08/10] m68k,mm: Extend table allocator for multiple sizes

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: <f666487838350308d2470c30d34a33eb7922e720.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:12:02 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com
Subject: Re: Checkpatch being daft, Was: [PATCH -v2 08/10] m68k,mm: Extend
 table allocator for multiple sizes

On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 17:38 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 10:24:15AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Maybe this?
> 
> This isn't anywhere near RFC compliant,

Nothing really is.

https://metacpan.org/pod/Email::Address

doesn't really do a perfect job either, but I suppose
it'd be possible to use it one day instead.

> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
[]
>  one little nit below..
[]
> > +sub same_email_addresses {
> > +	my ($email1, $email2) = @_;
> > +
> > +	my ($email1_name, $name1_comment, $email1_address, $comment1) = parse_email($email1);
> > +	my ($email2_name, $name2_comment, $email2_address, $comment2) = parse_email($email2);
> > +
> > +	return $email1_name eq $email2_name &&
> > +	       $email1_address eq $email2_address;
> 
> strictly speaking only _address needs be the same for the whole thing to
> arrive at the same inbox, but I suppose that for sanity's sake, this
> comparison makes sense.

I know, and I believe that's true too.