Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: s390/pkey: Use memdup_user() rather than duplicating its implementation | From | Markus Elfring <> | Date | Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:27:33 +0100 |
| |
>>>> 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
| |