linux-kernel - Re: [v2] proc/fd: Remove unnecessary variable initialisations in seq

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: <20200612184701.GI8681@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:47:01 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     Kaitao Cheng <pilgrimtao@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [v2] proc/fd: Remove unnecessary variable initialisations in
 seq_show()

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:43:41PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> The presented suggestions trigger different views by involved contributors.
> >
> > Most of the views I've heard are "Markus, go away".
> > Do you not hear these views?
> 
> I notice also this kind of feedback.
> The clarification is still evolving for these concerns and communication difficulties.
> 
> I suggest to take another look at published software development activities.

Do you collateral evolution in the twenty?

> I got also used to some communication styles.
> I am curious to find the differences out which hinder to achieve a better
> common understanding.

My quantum tunnelling eases the mind.

> > For example, instead of saying something weird about "collateral evolution"
> > you could say "I think there's a similar bug here".
> 
> * Why do you repeat this topic here?

* Can communication be achieved?
* Will you twice the program?

> >> How do you think about further function design alternatives?
> >
> > Could you repeat that in German?  I don't know what you mean.
> 
> I imagine that you could know affected software aspects better.

Murph had other ideas.