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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231017085817.71d4f83b@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:58:17 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, anjali.singhai@...el.com, namrata.limaye@...el.com, deb.chatterjee@...el.com, john.andy.fingerhut@...el.com, dan.daly@...el.com, Vipin.Jain@....com, tom@...anda.io, mleitner@...hat.com, Mahesh.Shirshyad@....com, tomasz.osinski@...el.com, jiri@...nulli.us, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, vladbu@...dia.com, horms@...nel.org, khalidm@...dia.com, toke@...hat.com, mattyk@...dia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/18] Introducing P4TC On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:56:15 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > Um. Maybe.. Sparse generates more false positives than good warnings > > lately :( We'd have to add some extra info like "Note that sparse > > is known to generate false-positive warnings, if you think that the > > warning generated with C=1 is bogus, ignore it and note that fact > > in the commit message". > > > > > I don't like documenting things which aren't clear-cut :( > > Upto you - couldnt sum up from above if you want a patch or not. I > think it makes sense to document C=1 somewhere since it helps your > overhead. > But the comment Similar in spirit to the checkpatch comment if - "But > do not be mindlessly robotic in doing so..." Weak preference for keeping it as is. The wins on my end don't justify the extra rule for the drive-by developers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists