linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <c910fa00-c27b-9854-9ab2-6f37c28b87f6@arm.com>
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