linux-kernel - Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: rtw

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003121145540.2418@hadrien>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:49:20 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
cc:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@...il.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com,
        daniel.baluta@...il.com, hverkuil@...all.nl,
        Larry.Finger@...inger.net
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_mlme: Remove
 unnecessary conditions



On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Stefano Brivio wrote:

> Hi Lakshmi,
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:42:06 -0700
> Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/11/2020 6:58 AM, Shreeya Patel wrote:
> >
> > > Remove unnecessary if and else conditions since both are leading to the
> > > initialization of "phtpriv->ampdu_enable" with the same value.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@...il.com>
> >
> > Stating this based on the patch descriptions I have seen.
> > Others, please advise\correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> > Patch description should state the problem first[1] and then describe
> > how that is fixed in the given patch.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > In the function rtw_update_ht_cap(), phtpriv->ampdu_enable is set to the
> > same value in both if and else statements.
> >
> > This patch removes this unnecessary if-else statement.
>
> That's my general preference as well, but I can't find any point in the
> "Describe your changes" section of submitting-patches.rst actually
> defining the order. I wouldn't imply that from the sequence the steps
> are presented in.
>
> In case it's possible to say everything with a single statement as
> Shreeya did here, though, I guess that becomes rather a linguistic
> factor, and I personally prefer the concise version here.

https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchPhilosophy suggests:

In patch descriptions and in the subject, it is common and preferable to
use present-tense, imperative language. Write as if you are telling git
what to do with your patch.

It provides the following as an example of a good description:

    somedriver: fix sleep while atomic in send_a_packet()

    The send_a_packet() function is called in atomic context but takes a mutex,
    causing a sleeping while atomic warning.  Change the skb_lock to be a spin
    lock instead of a mutex to fix.

So this illustrates the order that Lakshmi suggests, even though I don't
think that order is ever suggested explicitly.  On the other hand it
avoids "This patch...", which would add some clutter, in my opinion.

julia

>
> --
> Stefano
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@...glegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20200312113416.23d3db5c%40elisabeth.
>