netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

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]

Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:48:53 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     David Ranch <linux-hams@...nnet.net>
Cc:     linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        walter harms <wharms@....de>, Kevin Dawson <hal@...net.au>,
        "Bernard, f6bvp" <f6bvp@...e.fr>,
        Thomas Osterried <thomas@...erried.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch
 fall-throughs

Hi David,

Quoting David Ranch <linux-hams@...nnet.net>:

> Hello Gustavo,
>
> I appreciate you working on keeping up the kernel and maintaining  
> some of the older feature areas like AX.25, Netrom, etc.  Other than  
> auditing your code changes, can you tell me what you're changing?  
> I've been attempting to find who / where does regression tests for  
> the Linus kernel to potentially ADD test suites for this area.  In  
> the recent past, we have seen a lot of toxicity creep into the  
> kernel because no one is testing their changes and backing out this  
> toxic code out of released Linux distributions takes a VERY long time.
>

Here you can see the patch I'm proposing to refactor some code:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10029119/

It does not add any new functionality. It's just a small function that  
helps to modularize and reduce the size of the code in the  
nr_add_node() function.

The function I'm proposing (re_sort_routes) re-sort the routes in  
quality order. It takes as arguments a pointer to the nr_node  
structure which contains the routes within and the indexes of the  
routes to re-sort.

This function also replaces a "manual" swap of the routes with a call  
to the swap macro.

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva

> I'm willing to try and help here but I really would like to follow  
> some team's guidelines of how they would like tests to be created,  
> supported, etc.  Be it in VMs, containers, specific automation  
> languages, etc.
>
> --David
> KI6ZHD
>
>
>
>
> On 10/26/2017 10:50 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> The aim of this patchset is firstly to refactor code in nr_route.c  
>> in order to make it
>> easier to read and maintain and, secondly, to mark some expected  
>> switch fall-throughs
>> in preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> I have to mention that I did not implement any unit test.
>> If someone has any suggestions on how I could test this piece of code
>> it'd be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>>  - Make use of the swap macro and remove inline keyword as suggested by
>>    Walter Harms and Kevin Dawson.
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>>  - Update subject for both patches.
>>  - Add this cover letter as suggested by David Miller.
>>
>> Gustavo A. R. Silva (2):
>>   net: netrom: nr_route: refactor code in nr_add_node
>>   net: netrom: nr_route: mark expected switch fall-throughs
>>
>>  net/netrom/nr_route.c | 62  
>> ++++++++++++++++-----------------------------------
>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>>