netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] sch_cake: drop unused variable tin_quantum

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: <20191218155205.6b0d724c@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:52:05 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] sch_cake: drop unused variable
 tin_quantum_prio

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:37:16 -0800 (PST), David Miller wrote:
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:53:40 -0800
> 
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:05:13 +0000, Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant
> > wrote:  
> >> Turns out tin_quantum_prio isn't used anymore and is a leftover from a
> >> previous implementation of diffserv tins.  Since the variable isn't used
> >> in any calculations it can be eliminated.
> >> 
> >> Drop variable and places where it was set.  Rename remaining variable
> >> and consolidate naming of intermediate variables that set it.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk>  
> > 
> > Checkpatch sayeth:
> > 
> > WARNING: Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author 'Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant <ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk>'  
> 
> Which is kinda rediculous wouldn't you say? :-)
> 
> The warning stops to be useful if it's going to be applied in situations
> like this where merely a nickname 'ldir' is added to the middle of the
> person's formal name.
> 
> I would never push back on a patch on these grounds, it just wastes time.

Yup, just tuning the checks, this one I wasn't 100% sure :-)

Looks like Greg's script only complains if both name and address are
different, but checkpatch expects the exact same thing. I'll stick to
Greg's method.

Feedback is very welcome :-)