netdev - Re: ice: Use common error handling code in two functions

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: <65be7465-bca1-fa3d-f549-1849c6188ff2@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 11:23:29 -0700
From: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, Przemek Kitszel
	<przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jacob Keller
	<jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "Karol
 Kolacinski" <karol.kolacinski@...el.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: ice: Use common error handling code in two functions



On 9/20/2024 12:05 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> Add jump targets so that a bit of exception handling can be better reused
>>> at the end of two function implementations.
>>
>> Thank you for contribution, the change is fine,
> 
> Thanks for this positive feedback.
> 
> 
>>                                                  but not as a bugfix.
> 
> Would you like to qualify my update suggestion as a correction for
> a coding style issue?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?h=v6.11#n526

It can go to -next to correct the coding style, however, for -net it 
should be user visible bugs.

>> Please send as a [iwl-next], when the submission window opens.
> 
> Will a patch resend really be needed for the proposed adjustment?

I'll go ahead and apply this to iwl-next without a re-send, but please 
keep Przemek's comments in mind for future submissions.

Thanks,
Tony