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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ZeGfJZv-dWMIZJsx@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 09:25:57 +0000
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
To: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	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()

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:33:24PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> 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.

These patches are fine. I'll take them via the hyperv-fixes tree.

Thanks,
Wei.