linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sr: simplify the local variable initialization in sr_block

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: <CAKXUXMz4XkWTizAjD9nB3x47Fu4+1=pQgWRQNnFzxqCPr8cFSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:33:33 +0100
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sr: simplify the local variable initialization in sr_block_open()

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:05 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 3/14/22 9:03 AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > Commit 01d0c698536f ("sr: implement ->free_disk to simplify refcounting")
> > refactored sr_block_open(), initialized one variable with a duplicate
> > assignment (probably an unintended copy & paste duplication) and turned one
> > error case into an early return, which makes the initialization of the
> > return variable needless.
> >
> > So, simplify the local variable initialization in sr_block_open() to make
> > the code a bit more clear.
> >
> > No functional change. No change in resulting object code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
> > ---
> > Christoph, please ack.
> >
> > Jens, please pick this minor clean-up on your -next branch on top of the
> > commit above.
>
> Should it have a Fixes line?
>

As it is really just syntactic clean-up, it does not deserve the
attention for any kind of severity assessment or potential
backporting, which usually comes with a Fixes: tag.

So, I personally do not consider a Fixes: tag needed. The code works
well before this patch, and well after this patch; it is just a bit
more clear now.

Lukas

> --
> Jens Axboe
>