From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] cipso: simplify cipso_v4_translate() when !CONFIG_NETLABEL Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:59:33 -0500 Message-ID: <2049996.Ospk96ghpo@sifl> References: <20131120192548.5616.74526.stgit@localhost> <4007061.3MtKnenLV1@sifl> <20131120.145511.1303114952026497883.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28156 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754843Ab3KTT7j (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:59:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20131120.145511.1303114952026497883.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 02:55:11 PM David Miller wrote: > From: Paul Moore > Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:45:19 -0500 > > > Looking at the original conditional: > > if ((tag_len == 0) || (opt[opt_iter + 1] > (opt_len - opt_iter)) > > > > ... and the replacement: > > if ((tag_len == 0) || (tag_len > (opt_len - opt_iter))) > > > > ... we notice that "(opt[opt_iter + 1] > (opt_len - opt_iter))" has been > > replaced with "(tag_len > (opt_len - opt_iter))", substituting 'tag_len' > > for 'opt[opt_iter + 1]'. This is acceptable because the the first > > statement in> > > the for loop is: > > tag_len = opt[opt_iter + 1] > > > > ... which matches the substitution in the conditional. I'm not sure how > > much more explicit I can be about this change, it is really pretty minor. > > Then, two things: > > 1) This is a cleanup, and therefore not suitable for submission right now > because the net-next tree is closed. I wasn't expecting it to go into the current merge window, I was just sending it out now so you'd have it for when things started moving again. Think of it as spreading the pain out a bit. > 2) A more suitable commit log message would have been "Don't needlessly > recompute 'opt[opt_iter + 1]' as we already have it stored in tag_len". > > Then anyone who reads this commit message can say "yes, obviously this > is a correct change and matches what the patch is doing" Fair enough. Do you want a resubmit with your wording once the merge window closes? > Thanks. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat