linux-kernel - Re: [3/3] leds: leds-lp55xx: Convert mutex lock/unlock to guard API

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: <2a1cffd6-8ca2-4dd7-94ee-2debadcb1521@web.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:24:48 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
 Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [3/3] leds: leds-lp55xx: Convert mutex lock/unlock to guard API

>>>>> Convert any entry of mutex lock/unlock to guard API and simplify code.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks that you would like to support another bit of collateral evolution.
>>>>
>>>> * Would you get into the mood to benefit any more from applications
>>>>   of scope-based resource management?
>>>
>>> Why don't you submit them yourself instead of asking others to do work?
>>
>> 1. The change resistance (or acceptance) is varying for possible software transformations
>>    in wide ranges, isn't it?
>
> How would that be any different for anyone else?

Maybe not.


> Resistance/acceptance should be based on patch quality alone.

There are further factors involved also according to usual communication challenges.


>> 2. I would appreciate better support and collaboration with additional development resources.
>
> In what regard?

I got the impression that progress would be hindered (or even blocked?) for a while
in selected subsystem areas.


> What additional resources could you possibly need?

Possibly known examples:

* More powerful computation equipment?

* Software improvements?

* Financial incentives?


>> 3. I hope that further improvements can be achieved also by the means of
>>    the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software) in safer and more convenient ways.
>>    Are you looking for any extensions according to the coccicheck tool?
>
> Sounds good.

Thanks for such positive feedback.


> Submit a patch.

How long will the integration take (if you would like to take another look at
growing product backlogs)?

Regards,
Markus