linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <90c5ceac-c3dc-3811-a763-bd89173bb2c2@web.de>
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 20:27:21 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Bernard Zhao <bernard@...o.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, opensource.kernel@...o.com,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

> Maybe dmc->df->lock is unnecessary to protect function
> exynos5_dmc_perf_events_check(dmc). If we have to protect,
> dmc->lock is more better and more effective.
> Also, it seems not needed to protect "if (ret) & dev_warn"
> branch.

I suggest to improve also this commit message.

* Please reduce uncertainty.

* An imperative wording is probably preferred, isn't it?

* Will it be more appropriate to refer to the action “Reduce the lock scope”?

* Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the change description?

Regards,
Markus