linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm: provide one common K(x) macro

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: <YS9fxXSl5vhs5a+X@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 13:11:01 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm: provide one common K(x) macro

On Wed 01-09-21 12:50:40, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
[...]
> ```
> 31 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)
> ```
> 
> which is not that horrible.

Still a lot of churn to my taste for something that is likely a matter
of personal preferences and taste. Consider additional costs as well.
E.g. go over additional git blame steps to learn why the code has been
introduced, review bandwith etc...

And just be clear, I am not really opposing this patch I just do not see
a justification and in general I am not super thrilled about cleanups
which are not really necessary for a bigger goal - exactly because of
the additional costs mentioned above.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs