From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753696AbcIIQuj (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:50:39 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]:51972 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751817AbcIIQug (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:50:36 -0400 Subject: Re: s390/debug: Fine-tuning for several function implementations To: Martin Schwidefsky References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <20160905123103.2c587d60@mschwide> Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand , Heiko Carstens , Joe Perches , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall , Paolo Bonzini From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <294ddc61-8bd8-2116-fb4f-c1083148bbab@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 18:50:17 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160905123103.2c587d60@mschwide> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:LT4RpVRXg+82RLqcRXW2/tXRGlQTgUpt/ET4R4KT+b6aYAzuQW1 uesT/utz/NhWc8pAKxTi1tMoC/+BkREx5XLE8W+Xnj/zISl9e81teASIrGlQFve/UHoZfT6 jSlZ286476ACp6OGYoc2oQQewnueJ9Hgwtthd7Yf80nCD9cl4sc7Nkpa/wZtU4BiO4xY+kT KOH1/75t6Sjun7p1TicoQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:70btadPbYTU=:GRup1iqPlsmFnCOGzjCygB lVfWDnlb4JeKszRI/r+qcMSnTWpXDs7Hwk505DC3AwU3e+5yGwPdKjDHARA00W4OQAu8J0QOh 0lG6x0KeiSgklQa6+Bz/uFz3naHOE6ygSZiFmLEWUXPa/HVqxEKJgNHmV20Q1RkCAVkjDa7oU vXZTiVxtWrVemVQyFMWV/GoBH6abtUaYcAU3nO/auWqcni2/QYmghlWFgHDKBkCtnqSvmsZX1 ca4DzMmD6xYTNunucFiAcz2I0QhG69+JgRyyAdlvJVJc9PSQb7afYCt6ZFE69M5ahhAYYkUYc AYG7uXziNHuPaWaDUbufIHBV9bRzfFRyGdOVIXJPuyhxuJDWxnzAfA50eNtn1JRMrcc/LXyOv rT9lgICQUlXoBkBqL9Pp9JJJIoJkyZ84FAxTVtTAPB05/j2m8madgzgOE7nAP7H0h5hRQtIKt 6/figWx5fcsB/FPH4CyIAKuMfQr1Dl2UfOaJxIkBtRjARva1Z1KcSmyLlfW4dqmbwUldXQ8rU xR6krwXX9OJPnvz70UyOG1qQ8u1vh1LO7dsC2zKv0yZUFtqGZAffT+C2OfJRV6T/DZUFVgX+6 brBWsmaVpv4styzp+EOs9ARDruqdNwUeDWHqubtU/QFTya0SqJXF/+3ePDxOg7W2vJIDk6+u/ dQuKeLxz26Z/vDJ1WUmOwd5i7A9UMW95LOaZfg2+vnCbGaAPrpXm0AfGfs2fJ0wScCfvI4Z/v KtjnEMLlm4OHAYjaTPK2xgE6EFD8NIebf7Os8YiGyj3QsHgbaoFGSnM8IslsGzPAtAjrn6hHZ 2Bo4Qmr Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > While I agree that the old code in arch/s390/kernel/debug.c does not abide to > the current coding style standards, Thanks for this kind of acknowledgement. Is such an information worth for further development considerations? > I doubt there is much value in these patches. I assume that your doubts could be adjusted, couldn't they? Are there any other concerns involved in the background? > To be honest I got annoyed after the third patch Which of the proposed changes did trigger such a reaction? I find this response also a bit surprising because of the aspect that I offered you some results from my work as a free software developer. > and stopped reading after the forth. I imagine that you could have aborted the review of my update suggestions a bit too early for your debug software module. I agree that the value is varying for the presented 17 update steps. But I hope that their value is potentially bigger overall than you categorise them at first glance. Now I would like to try to get a bit of your software development attention once more for two of them at least. I hope that it can be easier to clarify their value. * Do the implementations of the functions "debug_areas_alloc" and "debug_get_user_string" need another look together with a more detailed source code review? * How do you think about to use functions like "kmalloc_array" and "memdup_user" there instead? Regards, Markus