linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 10/14] KVM: s390: Refactor absolute vm mem

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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:02:46 +0100
From:   Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>,
        Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/14] KVM: s390: Refactor absolute vm mem_op function

On 1/26/23 13:18, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 25/01/2023 22.26, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>> Remove code duplication with regards to the CHECK_ONLY flag.
>> Decrease the number of indents.
>> No functional change indented.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>
>>
>> Cosmetic only, can be dropped.
> 
> I'm torn between unnecessary-code-churn and
> nice-to-get-rid-of-one-indentation-level here ... anyway, patch looks sane
> to me, so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
> 

As long as we're not adding to this function in the future then I'm 
okish with leaving it as is.