>>>> 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
