linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Use min() to fix Coccinelle warning

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: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:36:11 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...lux.com>, jstultz@...gle.com,
 sboyd@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...lux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Use min() to fix Coccinelle warning

Thorsten!

On Mon, Jun 24 2024 at 08:24, Thorsten Blum wrote:

> Fixes the following Coccinelle/coccicheck warning reported by
> minmax.cocci:
>
> 	WARNING opportunity for min()

I'm fine with the change, but not so much with the change log.

You cannot fix a coccinelle warning. You can only fix the code which
triggers the warning, right?

'Opportunity to use min()' is nothing else than an opportunity, but
what's the benefit of replacing correct code with it? What does this
fix?

It fixes nothing. So calling it a fix is confusing at best.

What you want to say is something like this:

  Subject: timekeeping: Replace open coded min()

  Replace open coded min() because $GOOD_REASON

  Discovered by minmax.cocci

$GOOD_REASON is not 'coccinelle emitted a warning'.

Thanks,

        tglx