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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 12:56:49 +0100 From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, 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> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area On 5/12/20 12:40 PM, Markus Elfring wrote: >> Maybe dmc->df->lock seems not needed to protect "if (ret) >> & dev_warn" branch. Maybe this change speed up the code a bit. > > I suggest to improve also this commit message. > > * Please reduce uncertainty. > > * An imperative wording is probably preferred, isn't it? > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=152036d1379ffd6985262743dcf6b0f9c75f83a4#n151 > > * Will it be more appropriate to refer to the transformation “Reduce the lock scope”? > > * Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the change description? > > Regards, > Markus > Thank you Markus for providing to Bernard helpful suggestions. @Bernard please read the link above and send v3 Something like: 'memory/samsung: reduce protected code area in IRQ handler' for the subject header would be better. Then in the message explain (without 'maybe') that it will speed-up a bit this IRQ processing and there is no need to protect return value or printing. Regards, Lukasz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists