From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:58520 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752357AbdJTJBr (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:01:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:01:39 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com Cc: andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, elfring@users.sourceforge.net, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, jsnitsel@redhat.com, kgold@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, PeterHuewe@gmx.de, stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions Message-ID: <20171020090139.l4igyucqxqmgrq7l@linux.intel.com> References: <1d3516a2-a8e6-9e95-d438-f115fac84c7f@users.sourceforge.net> <83a166af-aecc-649d-dfe3-a72245345209@users.sourceforge.net> <1508238182.16112.475.camel@linux.intel.com> <20171018144811.klfmzikibuux77pf@linux.intel.com> <8afa2fb8d8704aff804cd8da15e931da@infineon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <8afa2fb8d8704aff804cd8da15e931da@infineon.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:58:23PM +0000, Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:50:05AM +0000, Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com > > wrote: > > > > > Replace the specification of data structures by pointer dereferences > > > > > as the parameter for the operator "sizeof" to make the corresponding > > > > > size > > > > > determination a bit safer according to the Linux coding style > > > > > convention. > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch does one style in favor of the other. > > > > > > I actually prefer that style, so I'd welcome this change :) > > > > > > > At the end it's Jarkko's call, though I would NAK this as I think some > > > > one already told this to you for some other similar patch(es). > > > > > > > > > > > > I even would suggest to stop doing this noisy stuff, which keeps people > > > > busy for nothing. > > > > > > Cleaning up old code is also worth something, even if does not change > > > one bit in the assembly output in the end... > > > > > > Alexander > > > > Quite insignificant clean up it is that does more harm that gives any > > benefit as any new change adds debt to backporting. > > > > Anyway, this has been a useful patch set for me in the sense that I have > > clearer picture now on discarding/accepting commits. > > Indeed. I have now a better understanding for why some code looks as > ugly as it does. > > > One line minor > > clean up will be from now on automatic NAK unless it causes a compiler > > warning or some other visible side-effect. > > Not a nice policy, but at least a policy. I have deleted the tasks > that I had still planned for other cleanup activities. > > Alexander 1/4 and 2/4 are sensible clean ups as long as the commit message is refined. Moving more functions to use tpm_buf instead of nasty tpm_cmd_t are also welcome changes. Documenting functions (exported mainly) is also welcome. Or refining documentation. It's really case by case. The important thing in small clean ups is a clearly written commit message that explains rationale. /Jarkko