On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:58:23PM +0000, Alexander.Steffen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:50:05AM +0000, Alexander.Steffen@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > wrote: > > > > > Replace the specification of data structures by pointer dereferences > > > > > as the parameter for the operator "sizeof" to make the corresponding > > > > > 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 :) > > > > > > > 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 > > > > 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. > > > 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
