On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:01:39PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:58:23PM +0000,

Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:50:05AM +0000,

Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com

quoted

quoted

quoted

wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Replace the specification of data structures by pointer

dereferences

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

as the parameter for the operator "sizeof" to make the

corresponding

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

size
determination a bit safer according to the Linux coding style
convention.

This patch does one style in favor of the other.

I actually prefer that style, so I'd welcome this change :)

quoted

At the end it's Jarkko's call, though I would NAK this as I think some
one already told this to you for some other similar patch(es).


I even would suggest to stop doing this noisy stuff, which keeps

people

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

busy for nothing.

Cleaning up old code is also worth something, even if does not change
one bit in the assembly output in the end...

Alexander

Quite insignificant clean up it is that does more harm that gives any
benefit as any new change adds debt to backporting.

Anyway, this has been a useful patch set for me in the sense that I have
clearer picture now on discarding/accepting commits.

Indeed. I have now a better understanding for why some code looks as
ugly as it does.

quoted

One line minor
clean up will be from now on automatic NAK unless it causes a compiler
warning or some other visible side-effect.

Not a nice policy, but at least a policy. I have deleted the tasks
that I had still planned for other cleanup activities.

Alexander

1/4 and 2/4 are sensible clean ups as long as the commit message is
refined.

Moving more functions to use tpm_buf instead of nasty tpm_cmd_t are
also welcome changes.

Documenting functions (exported mainly) is also welcome. Or refining
documentation.

It's really case by case. The important thing in small clean ups is
a clearly written commit message that explains rationale.

/Jarkko

It's easy to say in retroperpective that code is "ugly". I would use
strong consideration before using that adjective for mainline code.
Rarely when you do something new first the form will be polished.

(Let's not argue over words, not being a native speaker, I'll probably not choose the perfect expression all the time.)

My assumption is that in many cases the code was not like that from the beginning. Over time, new functionality got added, interfaces expanded, etc. But when the goal tends to be to keep the changes minimal, then it is only natural for everyone to be focused on their small parts of the code, and not clean up the surrounding areas (or better integrate with them).

I was too steep with the policy above. It's not exactly like that in the
strict sense. It's always case by case like for any commit. However, it
is good to remember that "ugliness" does not cause regressions.

Not by itself, no. But it causes cognitive strain while working with the code, and that might lead to bugs.

Alexander