linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove unused variable and DBG_88E in hal/rtl8188e

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: <325822103.EpFXLVovdo@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:01:16 +0200
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@...inger.net, straube.linux@...il.com,
        martin@...ser.cx, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove unused variable and DBG_88E in hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c

On Monday, August 16, 2021 8:55:06 AM CEST Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 1:05:18 AM CEST Phillip Potter wrote:
> > Remove set but unused variable init_rate from rtl8188e_Add_RateATid
> > function in hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c, as it fixes a kernel test robot warning.
> > Removing the call to get_highest_rate_idx has no side effects here so is
> > safe.
> > 
> > Also remove the DBG_88E macro call in this function, as it is not
> > particularly clear in my opinion. Additionally, rename variable
> > shortGIrate to short_gi_rate to conform to kernel camel case rules,
> > and improve general spacing around operators, some of which triggers
> > checkpatch 'CHECK' messages. These are not related to the test robot
> > warning.
> > 
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
> > ---
> > 
> >  drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c | 22 +++++++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> Dear Philip,
> 
> I'm sorry but, although every change here is fine, I cannot ack your patch 
as-
> is. It shouldn't address so many different issues all at once, according to
> the best practices in patching and the kernel development rules.
> 
> I understand that you think that, while you are at the removal of 
"init_rate",
> why shouldn't I address all other trivial issues at once?
> 
> Even if the patch is short and it probably doesn't require particular hard
> effort to review it, that mix-up of different works shouldn't be done, 
mainly
> because this attitude could potentially lead you to add more and more
> different work in future patches. Where is the limit? Why not add some more
> different works next time you find some more problems into the same file/
> directory?
> 
> If I were you I'd, at least, prepare a series of two or three patches:
> 
> 1/3 - Remove init_rate as reported by KTR;
> 2/3 - Remove unneeded DBG_88E macro;
> 3/3 - Do some clean-up of rtl8188e_cmd.c;
> 
> Perhaps patches 2/3 and 3/3 could be merged into one, but I'm not really 
sure.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Fabio

Furthermore, I forgot to say that the "Subject" should summarize with few 
words the whole work you do and in this case it is not what it does.

Fabio