linux-kernel - Re: [1/2] nvme-auth: unlock mutex in one place only

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZMf7BUH3ZD+GA7TA@kbusch-mbp>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:18:45 -0600
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark O'Donovan <shiftee@...teo.net>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [1/2] nvme-auth: unlock mutex in one place only

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 07:46:25PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Are imperative change descriptions still preferred?
> >
> > It doesn't fucking matter.
> 
> Do you exaggerate here?
> 
> If not:
> Does such a feedback really indicate that you would intentionally like to
> disagree with specific requirements from the Linux development documentation
> (for a discussed patch)?

The subject is already in the imperative voice, and there's really
nothing furthur to elaborate that would help justify this patch's
inclusion. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.