On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Behan Webster wrote:
> On 09/05/14 17:18, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Behan Webster <beh...@converseincode.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois <charl...@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan-Simon Möller <dl...@gmx.de>
> > This SOB chain is completely ass backwards. See Documentation/...
> "The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
> development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path."
>
> All three of us were involved. Does that not satisfy this rule?
No. Read #12
The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
pass it on as an open-source patch.
So the above chain says:
Written-by: Behan
Passed-on-by: Mark
Passed-on-by: Jan
That would be correct if you sent the patch to Mark, Mark sent it to
Jan and Jan finally submitted it to LKML.
> > > - struct {
> > > - struct shash_desc shash;
> > > - char ctx[crypto_shash_descsize(tfm)];
> > > - } desc;
> > > + char desc[sizeof(struct shash_desc) +
> > > + crypto_shash_descsize(tfm)] CRYPTO_MINALIGN_ATTR;
> > > + struct shash_desc *shash = (struct shash_desc *)desc;
> > That anon struct should have never happened in the first place.
> Sadly this is a design pattern used in many places through out the kernel, and
> appears to be fundamental to the crypto system. I was advised *not* to change
> it, so we haven't.
>
> I agree that it's not a good practice.
>
> > Not
> > your problem, but you are not making it any better. You replace open
> > coded crap with even more unreadable crap.
> >
> > Whats wrong with
> >
> > SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(shash, tfm);
> Nothing is wrong with that. I would have actually preferred that. But it would
> have fundamentally changed a lot more code.
Errm. Why is
#define SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(shash, tfm) \
char __shash[sizeof(.....)]; \
struct shash_desc *shash = (struct shash_desc *) __shash
requiring more fundamental than open coding the same thing a gazillion
times. You still need to change ALL usage sides of the anon struct.
So in fact you could avoid the whole code change by making it
SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(desc, tfm);
and do the anon struct or a proper struct magic in the macro.
> I'm not sure making fundamental changes to the crypto code in order to make
> "my favourite compiler happy" is really a better plan. I prefer smaller more
> measured steps.
What's fundamental about a change which produces the same code but
hides all the easy to get wrong mess in a single place?
> > or something along that line and hide all the stack allocation, type
> > conversion crap and make my favourite compiler happy in a single
> > place?
> At this point it is less about making a particular compiler happy, and more
> about making the code at least C99 compliant which enables a different
> compiler so that more people can use it to make more fundamental changes like
> you are suggesting.
Well, just blindly making it compliant is one thing. But if we do that
we really should make it better and using a macro for this is
definitely an improvement which is worthwhile to do.
Thanks,
tglx
