linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] staging: pi433: Remove duplicated code using the "goto" error recovery scheme.

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: <2024040546-crudely-demanding-c13a@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:09:57 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Shahar Avidar <ikobh7@...il.com>, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Felix N. Kimbu" <felixkimbu1@...il.com>,
	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] staging: pi433: Remove duplicated code using the
 "goto" error recovery scheme.

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 12:05:56PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> I suggest to use the summary phrase “Use common error handling code
> in pi433_init()” instead.
> 
> 
> > pi433_init had "unregister_chrdev" called twice.
> > Remove it using goto statements.
> 
> How do you think about to use the following change description?
> 
>    unregister_chrdev() was called in two if branches.
>    Thus add jump targets so that a bit of exception handling can be better
>    reused at the end of this function implementation.
> 
> 
> …
> v2->v3:
> …
>           a seperate patch.
> …
> 
> Would you like to avoid a typo here?
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> 

Hi,

This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list.  I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore.  Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.

Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all.  The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback.  Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot