linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/2] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Remove duplication and cleanup code in create_gpadl

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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 15:33:24 +0000
From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Michael Kelley
	<mhklinux@...look.com>, Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
	"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>, Dexuan Cui
	<decui@...rosoft.com>, Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Dan Carpenter
	<dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org"
	<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Remove duplication and cleanup
 code in create_gpadl_header()

From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 8:19 AM
> 
> From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> Sent: Friday, January 12,
> 2024 12:06 AM
> >
> > …
> > > Eliminate the duplication by making minor tweaks to the logic and
> > > associated comments. While here, simplify the handling of memory
> > > allocation errors, and use umin() instead of open coding it.
> > …
> >
> > I got the impression that the adjustment for the mentioned macro
> > should be performed in a separate update step of the presented patch series.
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7/source/include/linux/minmax.h#L95
> >
> > See also:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Docu
> > mentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.7#n81
> >
> 
> To me, this is a judgment call.  Breaking out the umin() change into
> a separate patch is OK, but for consistency then I should probably
> break out the change to memory allocation errors in the same
> way.   Then we would have three patches, plus the patch to
> separately handle the indentation so the changes are reviewable.
> To me, that's overkill for updates to a single function that have
> no functionality change.  The intent of the patch is to cleanup
> and simplify a single 13-year old function, and it's OK to do
> that in a single patch (plus the indentation patch).
> 
> Wei Liu is the maintainer for the Hyper-V code.  Wei -- any
> objections to keeping a single patch (plus the indentation patch)?
> But I'll break it out if that's your preference.
> 

Wei Liu -- any input on this?  This is just a cleanup/simplification
patch, so it's not urgent.

Michael