On 07.11.19 15:27, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>>> 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.
Exactly and my point is that the main value of your patch is not the refactoring,
but the fact that your refactoring uncovered an existing memory leak. The refactoring
itself is usually not a fix.
So can you just redo the patch with a new patch description ala,
refactoring and reuse. While doing this this also uncovered a real code
bug (memory leak) that is fixed by the refactoring.
And please do that without continue this discussion,
