From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751462AbdJRRsm (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:48:42 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:58455 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750800AbdJRRsk (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:48:40 -0400 Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions To: Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: Mimi Zohar , Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_H=c3=bcwe?= , Stefan Berger References: <1508238182.16112.475.camel@linux.intel.com> <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018145735.lpzwakatsty7emlw@linux.intel.com> <351cf78a-14f6-c6e7-2902-048e7dc57a14@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018155946.e7ga7jyex6eia252@linux.intel.com> <55d76224-3019-6614-70ce-ba260bbcd54f@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 19:48:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:MYumSbLCx0srzKgkvP2Vck+w4lJksRA20qzaZjUsuFYKG2XK9Sv L9W+cniW1NpUEFoAlAbt73SP2xqEWykGEXzc3+5xcdRV4Cz14biW7HnFUNLJH8KOuHuYJbF 74M04BQ7W6ROMLnjFbvlLp7zKZ1gRIFk+w6GXgFgK3S0LHYKmKrcDytIA6kgdE+fVKgIPBg Wj8i1nZ9cUdt4iatgeU3A== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:eXxby6zz2i8=:+NercX9SaHLCskvAmtxYmu +bd2DZwDXe14QAcjnQmSP4RhgUe1phl0RRLdzD0iY2vXp18N9FTYso2a1kSwijEYewwHxFM5/ xdxkp9EnirPoeUdKd3+kHZN9hdfihse3v8jaHOidu6NrFE5Mr/4FAXkMI45TTGXjvqBk7dY59 cRjaR45XYyK7p8WLe/ocLcyhGGIJ73QL1k2dSVyWArLP2XkGyyBCqVjM0qfpngpPGL2jPvEL5 PxheWdSNGf60TMFIO15eSeUqFqbQ9i3lv3iJI/hJxu7GaQ2LW4g3SNgsXTjVgI08OjVF0+Tds LCHtR7o7voBfr/pE88DVfNS4IkGlJLIhQsKwcffNX2Ab7p2xPcuehcJeX2cQ7q5PPQKqxiTuv 0rsXAo0/blgLzUSwq5DCU2R5MIT6xuXRcZ5piOHOgZj3ZwrUeKEeGsEGBU7lZz8C0Q7I12aIt OUDe+jJM87D4ag4vuLFyoR29XwbgQcBGecLfMOMS5AVG/ocdCM25xtr+2MOGWMeBeSJXLVAaa mrltqmTRiKyCa98LtjGrTqJKXSyrMxZYdbQjwj90GjvHUj2sznaXvcUBoXlTdG7zpBWzYbsIu 9wuJX6WJkGd8q16hMsIdL2iiGxJCRAg4w1OXe/G7F3TGwxqDPw+ZbxXo6+FHXoj7dFPjtxvVO AudW/j2MOG8c5kzKONWfjSei5z1NlxYYnMrBGMh/IomqBUURS4gYPS9aXrTFCJ7xe8B5it5Sp A6/zc+pLm5RKyJpNXDgX1S6fWUtdvsCHbUSD8AzyKS/y3ivudBHPayPOUdpBwivmNtflfXLam 5q58gesCJJsZdfQiroTMuMA2hXMUhGVs1s8VLs/pVrYXl+vfsU= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps with the subject “Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in tpm_…()”? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/ I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern. > Remove sentence about Coccinelle. I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such a kind of attribution. > That's all. I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved. > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value. I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again. You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far. > 4/4: this a good commit message. Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step “[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection”? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/ https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@users.sourceforge.net> > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give. I am curious on how this detail will evolve. Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:48:06 +0000 Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions Message-Id: List-Id: References: <1508238182.16112.475.camel@linux.intel.com> <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018145735.lpzwakatsty7emlw@linux.intel.com> <351cf78a-14f6-c6e7-2902-048e7dc57a14@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018155946.e7ga7jyex6eia252@linux.intel.com> <55d76224-3019-6614-70ce-ba260bbcd54f@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: Mimi Zohar , Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_H=c3=bcwe?= , Stefan Berger > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps with the subject “Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in tpm_…()”? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/ I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern. > Remove sentence about Coccinelle. I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such a kind of attribution. > That's all. I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved. > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value. I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again. You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far. > 4/4: this a good commit message. Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step “[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection”? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/ https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@users.sourceforge.net> > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give. I am curious on how this detail will evolve. Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:58455 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750800AbdJRRsk (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:48:40 -0400 Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions To: Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: Mimi Zohar , Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_H=c3=bcwe?= , Stefan Berger References: <1508238182.16112.475.camel@linux.intel.com> <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018145735.lpzwakatsty7emlw@linux.intel.com> <351cf78a-14f6-c6e7-2902-048e7dc57a14@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018155946.e7ga7jyex6eia252@linux.intel.com> <55d76224-3019-6614-70ce-ba260bbcd54f@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 19:48:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps with the subject "Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in tpm_...()"? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/ I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern. > Remove sentence about Coccinelle. I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such a kind of attribution. > That's all. I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved. > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value. I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again. You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far. > 4/4: this a good commit message. Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step "[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection"? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/ https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@users.sourceforge.net> > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give. I am curious on how this detail will evolve. Regards, Markus