linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/ufs: Use LUT for dir entry types

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: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:00:18 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Luis Felipe Hernandez <luis.hernandez093@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@...l.ru>,
	Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/ufs: Use LUT for dir entry types

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 09:48:09AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > As per the original TODO, replacing the switch statement with a lookup
> > table results in more concise mapping logic and improved performance.
> …
> 
> Can imperative wordings be relevant for another improved change description?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.10-rc2#n94
> 
> 
> …
> > +++ b/fs/ufs/util.h
> …
> >  static inline void
> >  ufs_set_de_type(struct super_block *sb, struct ufs_dir_entry *de, int mode)
> …
> > +	if (mode_index < ARRAY_SIZE(ufs_mode_to_dt))
> > +		de->d_u.d_44.d_type = ufs_mode_to_dt[mode_index];
> > +	else
> >  		de->d_u.d_44.d_type = DT_UNKNOWN;
> …
> 
> May a conditional operator expression be applied at this source code place?
> 
> 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