linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/efs/inode.c: use __func_

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: <YykO1A0CDGwsEDZT@ZenIV>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 01:52:36 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Jiangshan Yi <13667453960@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        willy@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jiangshan Yi <yijiangshan@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/efs/inode.c: use __func__ instead of function name

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:37:13AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 01:24:26AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:33:14AM +0800, Jiangshan Yi wrote:
> > > From: Jiangshan Yi <yijiangshan@...inos.cn>
> > > 
> > > It is better to use __func__ instead of function name.
> > 
> > 	Why is it better?  And why is it *not* sent to (active)
> > maintainers of fs/erofs?  I'm not going to apply that behind their
> > backs and I would ask akpm to abstain from taking that one.
> 
> It's efs although it also starts with letter e and ends with fs ;).
> I have no idea who actually takes care of it now.

*blink*

I plead obscenely low caffeine blood levels.

And I'm still not taking that patch - IMO that kind of stuff is absolutely
pointless from anyone other than active maintainers of some code;
the rationale for using __func__ is based upon the possibility of
function getting renamed, and that's not going to happen on inactive
codebase.

IOW, *if* somebody is starting a serious work in that area - sure, might
as well throw that kind of change in, as part of the series.  Other than
that, though...  No.