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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YrWgsxH/yyEQdvEx@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:32:03 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Felix Schlepper <f3sch.git@...look.com>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        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 Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:41:42AM +0200, Felix Schlepper wrote:
> 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?

Please resend a v5, as I now have 3 different copies of a v4 series in
my inbox, which makes no sense at all.

Remember, make it obvious as to what to do for those of us who have to
handle 1000+ emails a day...

thanks,

greg k-h