linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/21] can: netlink: remove comment in can

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <59bc3e3b-bc96-4125-8e4d-4dbe92f8b2fc@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 00:12:14 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol@...nel.org>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
 Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Stéphane Grosjean <stephane.grosjean@...-networks.com>,
 Robert Nawrath <mbro1689@...il.com>, Minh Le <minh.le.aj@...esas.com>,
 Duy Nguyen <duy.nguyen.rh@...esas.com>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/21] can: netlink: remove comment in can_validate()

On 05/09/2025 at 19:55, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

(..)

> No need to defend yourself with specific references or even feel personally
> attacked.

Thanks. I was not sure how to read your previous message.

> My overall feeling is that you spend an excellent effort in commit messages but
> this information is then omitted in code comments.
> 
> As I've already written "I would like to motivate you to generally add more
> comments.". And this can also happen when refactoring things where new functions
> are created which reduces the context to the original code section.

My current mind set is that I want to do more ironing on the upcoming XL
patches. Because I do the documentation last once everything is working well,
this is still on my TODO list.

And when this is done, there is also

  Documentation/networking/can.rst

which need an update. At the moment, I am rather happy by just keeping the
existing documentation in this refactor series and want to put the extra effort
on the new stuff. Thinking of the upcoming work and of my current bandwidth, I
am really not in the mood into injecting more time in the refactor.

That said, on a second thought, I finally decided to keep the comment which I
previously wanted to remove. I will just move it from can_validate() to
can_validate_databittiming() in patch 06/21 "can: netlink: add
can_validate_databittiming()".

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol