From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.infineon.com (smtp2.infineon.com [IPv6:2a00:18f0:1e00:4::4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3yJPZl247tzDq5W for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 23:03:26 +1100 (AEDT) From: To: CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/4] char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:03:20 +0000 Message-ID: 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> <20171020090139.l4igyucqxqmgrq7l@linux.intel.com> <20171020102351.bfz7s2ihwce7q2iz@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20171020102351.bfz7s2ihwce7q2iz@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:01:39PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > 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 thi= nk some > > > > > > one already told this to you for some other similar patch(es). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I even would suggest to stop doing this noisy stuff, which keep= s > people > > > > > > busy for nothing. > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up old code is also worth something, even if does not ch= ange > > > > > one bit in the assembly output in the end... > > > > > > > > > > Alexander > > > > > > > > Quite insignificant clean up it is that does more harm that gives a= ny > > > > 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 compi= ler > > > > 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 >=20 > It's easy to say in retroperpective that code is "ugly". I would use > strong consideration before using that adjective for mainline code. > Rarely when you do something new first the form will be polished. (Let's not argue over words, not being a native speaker, I'll probably not = choose the perfect expression all the time.) My assumption is that in many cases the code was not like that from the beg= inning. Over time, new functionality got added, interfaces expanded, etc. B= ut when the goal tends to be to keep the changes minimal, then it is only n= atural for everyone to be focused on their small parts of the code, and not= clean up the surrounding areas (or better integrate with them). > I was too steep with the policy above. It's not exactly like that in the > strict sense. It's always case by case like for any commit. However, it > is good to remember that "ugliness" does not cause regressions. Not by itself, no. But it causes cognitive strain while working with the co= de, and that might lead to bugs. Alexander