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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:23:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> cc: linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org, Tatyana Nikolova <tatyana.e.nikolova@...el.com>, Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>, Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>, Chien Tin Tung <chien.tin.tung@...el.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > Constify local structures. > > > > > > > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > > > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > > > > > Just my two cents but: > > > > > > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. > > > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit > > > messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think > > > that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes > > > somehow. > > > > > > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should > > > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. > > > > All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > you should explain why. > > > submitted to the relevant maintainers. The individual commit messages > > give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the > > structure was constifiable. It seemed redundant to put that in the cover > > letter, which will not be committed anyway. > > I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process > *that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to > explain that but it depends on the context). > > I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this > particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can > be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient. > Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals. OK, thanks for the feedback. julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists