linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Staging: rtl8192e: Cleaning up error handling

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: <AM9P190MB1299F18B717D3A5D3E6DE6D4A5B49@AM9P190MB1299.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:41:42 +0200
From:   Felix Schlepper <f3sch.git@...look.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Staging: rtl8192e: Cleaning up error handling

On 24.06.2022 08:21, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:20:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:44 PM Felix Schlepper <f3sch.git@...look.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Moved error handling to one common block.
> > > This removes double checking if all txb->fragments[]
> > > were initialized.
> > > The original code worked fine, but this is cleaner.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > +err_free:
> > > +       while (--i >= 0)
> >
> >   while (i--)
> >
> > will suffice.
> >
>
> Either one is fine.  You prefer this format.  I prefer that other
> format.  I told Felix he could use either format without expressing any
> bias and he chose my format.  That means he loves me more.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
Andy's advice is of course much appreciated but I prefer Dan's style <3.

On another note, the thread is quite messy now, since all my previous
failed attempts to send are now threaded to this one.
How would I go about solving this? Sending another v5 version, the v4
with [RESEND PATCH v4...] or does this even need any action on my part?

Cheers
Felix Schlepper