Re: s390/pkey: Use memdup_user() rather than duplicating its implementation

[Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>]

>>>> Reuse existing functionality from memdup_user() instead of keeping
>>>> duplicate source code.
>>>>
>>>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/memdup_user.cocci
>>>>
>>>> Delete local variables which became unnecessary with this refactoring
>>>> in two function implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: f2bbc96e7cfad3891b7bf9bd3e566b9b7ab4553d ("s390/pkey: add CCA AES cipher key support")
>>>
>>> With that patch description, the Fixes tag is wrong...but (see below)
>>
>> I wonder about such a conclusion together with your subsequent feedback.
>
> Please try to read and understand what other people write.

I am also trying as usual.


> My point was that your patch description only talks about refactoring
> and avoiding code duplication.

These implementation details are mentioned.


> So you do not claim to have fixed anything.

We have got a different understanding for the provided wording.


> You claim to have refactored things to avoid code duplication.

The reused code can reduce the probability for programming mistakes,
can't it?


> And no, refactoring is NOT a fix.

Software development opinions vary around such a view, don't they?


> That fact that you fix a bug was obviously just by accident.

I can follow this view to some degree.


> So you have not even noticed that your change was actually chaning
> the logical flow of the code.

I suggested to improve two function implementations.


> Now: When you change the patch description explaining what you fix,
> a Fixes tag is appropriate.

Can such a disagreement be resolved by adding the information
to the change description that an incomplete exception handling
(which can trigger a memory leak) should be replaced by hopefully
better functionality?

Regards,
Markus