linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/24] dyndbg: refactor parse_linerange out of ddebug_parse

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: <CAJfuBxwtbgOFvo3k+_ucwTQkek8mo1f-AF6_u7qKDF6tBBGV+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:37:52 -0600
From:   jim.cromie@...il.com
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/24] dyndbg: refactor parse_linerange out of ddebug_parse_query

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:37 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat 2020-06-13 09:57:24, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > make the code-block reusable to later handle "file foo.c:101-200" etc.
>
> > This should be a 90%+ code-move, with minimal adaptations; reindent,
> > and scafolding.
>
> This sentence sounds like the author did some hidden
> microoptimizations and potentially broke the code.
> It made me nervous.
>
> But in fact, I do not see any real change except that the variable
> "first" does not longer need to be defined. So, it is just a code move.
>
> In this case, I usually write:
>
> This patch does not change the existing behavior.

I see your point.

it was code move, reindent, add function wrapper, add call, compile
I just dont recall if I had to touch anything else, add/move var decls etc.