linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau: Remove surplus struct member

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: <f429ce1c4c818d5e622bb6e9dc485e8e6b776e56.camel@mailbox.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 21:33:22 +0200
From: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...lbox.org>
To: Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>, "dakr@...nel.org" <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, 
 "phasta@...nel.org"
	 <phasta@...nel.org>, "nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org"
	 <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau: Remove surplus struct member

On Fri, 2025-08-01 at 15:42 +0000, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-08-01 at 17:12 +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Fri Aug 1, 2025 at 4:50 PM CEST, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > > Does mean that the TODO has been done, or that someone completely forgot and now your patch
> > > is
> > > remove all reminders?
> > > 
> > > If it's the format, maybe add a fixes: tag for the commit that resolved the TODO?
> > 
> > The TODO was introduced by commit ebb945a94bba ("drm/nouveau: port all engines
> > to new engine module format") from 2012.
> > 
> > It's a bit hard to know what exactly resolves "this will be reworked in the near
> > future" for a commit with the following diffstat. :)
> > 
> > 	146 files changed, 14219 insertions(+), 11099 deletions(-)
> > 
> > The last remains of accel_done were removed with commit
> > 4e2ec2500bfc ("drm/nouveau: Remove file nouveau_fbcon.c"), but I don't think we
> > should mention this commit, given that apparently no one knows what was intended
> > to be reworked here [1].
> > 
> > We could mention the above in the commit message, though it will also be
> > available through the lore link in the commit message once the patch is applied.
> 
> It's your call, I'm just leery of removing a TODO without any mention of whether it's actually
> done.

We can't really tell whether "it" is done or not, because the original
author didn't write down *what* exactly needs to be done, which makes
the TODO kind of useless.

Since that information is lost forever, removing it arguably is
alright.

P.

> 
> > NIT: Please don't top post, use interleaved style [2] instead.
> 
> Sorry, coffee didn't kick in yet.