linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND linux-next] SUNRPC: Optimize list definition method

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: <dd196d82-6c38-4aa3-bdb5-228fe66f4e5b@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2025 12:41:21 -0500
From: "Chuck Lever" <cel@...nel.org>
To: "Chenguang Zhao" <zhaochenguang@...inos.cn>,
 "Trond Myklebust" <trondmy@...nel.org>, "Anna Schumaker" <anna@...nel.org>,
 "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
 NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>, "Olga Kornievskaia" <okorniev@...hat.com>,
 "Dai Ngo" <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, "Tom Talpey" <tom@...pey.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
 "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Simon Horman" <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND linux-next] SUNRPC: Optimize list definition method

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025, at 8:12 PM, Chenguang Zhao wrote:
> Integrate list definition and initialization into LIST_HEAD macro
>
> Signed-off-by: Chenguang Zhao <zhaochenguang@...inos.cn>
> ---
>  net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c b/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
> index caa94cf57123..949022c5574c 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xprt_setup_backchannel);
>  int xprt_setup_bc(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, unsigned int min_reqs)
>  {
>  	struct rpc_rqst *req;
> -	struct list_head tmp_list;
> +	LIST_HEAD(tmp_list);
>  	int i;
> 
>  	dprintk("RPC:       setup backchannel transport\n");
> @@ -147,7 +147,6 @@ int xprt_setup_bc(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, unsigned 
> int min_reqs)
>  	 * lock is held on the rpc_xprt struct.  It also makes cleanup
>  	 * easier in case of memory allocation errors.
>  	 */
> -	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tmp_list);
>  	for (i = 0; i < min_reqs; i++) {
>  		/* Pre-allocate one backchannel rpc_rqst */
>  		req = xprt_alloc_bc_req(xprt);
> -- 
> 2.25.1

The commit message:

> SUNRPC: Optimize list definition method
> 
> Integrate list definition and initialization into LIST_HEAD macro

Only describes what the change does, not why it's needed. The body
just restates the diff in English.

A commit message should justify the change. For this patch, there's
no justification. Moreover the word "Optimize" in the subject is
misleading - it implies a benefit that doesn't exist.

If this change were genuinely needed, the commit message should
explain something like:

- "...to match the pattern used elsewhere in this file" (if applicable)
- "...as a prerequisite for X"
- "...to fix Y"

For example, is this patch part of a kernel-wide audit driven by a
code safety concern?

-- 
Chuck Lever