linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: touch up predicts in putname()

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: <53cf045d-e3f4-451d-a809-8714d00add70@web.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 16:48:14 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: touch up predicts in putname()

…
> I verified this straightens out the asm, no functional changes.

Would a corresponding imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.18-rc3#n94

How do you think about to refer to predictions for condition checks?

Regards,
Markus