netdev - Re: [PATCH] net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register

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: <1452195846.4028.24.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:44:06 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...ium.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-thunder: One check less in
 nicvf_register_interrupts() after error detection

On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 20:30 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > Adjust a jump target to eliminate a check before error logging.
> > > Use the identifier "report_failure" instead of "err".
> > I don't see much value in those changes
> Thanks for your feedback.
> > Using the 'err' label is ok as it is not misleading and common use.
> Is such a short jump label enough explanation for the information
> "what" and "why"?

When there is only one type of error possible, yes.

> > And, there is no need to optimize the check since this is not the
> > fast path
> Really? - Is it a bit more efficient to avoid a double check for the
> variable "ret" at the end of the current implementation for the
> discussed function?

Before asking questions you could answer yourself,
please look at object code produced by the compiler
before and after your proposed changes.