netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock: Fix inconsistent comments

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: <CANn89iK3usa_bAfnD37VKvS45Qf6FH+H4fo-9zNrGGanc=7uAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jan 2020 06:54:53 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     sjpark@...zon.com
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, sj38.park@...il.com,
        aams@...zon.com, SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock: Fix inconsistent comments

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 4:24 AM <sjpark@...zon.com> wrote:
>
> From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
>
> Commit ec94c2696f0b ("tcp/dccp: avoid one atomic operation for timewait
> hashdance") mistakenly erased a comment for the second step of
> `inet_twsk_hashdance()`.  This commit restores it for better
> readability.
>
> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
> ---
>  net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock.c
> index c411c87ae865..fbfcd63cc170 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock.c
> @@ -120,6 +120,7 @@ void inet_twsk_hashdance(struct inet_timewait_sock *tw, struct sock *sk,
>
>         spin_lock(lock);
>
> +       /* Step 2: Hash TW into tcp ehash chain. */

This comment adds no value, please do not bring it back.

net-next is closed, now is not the time for cosmetic changes.

Also take a look at Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst