Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [0/8] target-iSCSI: Adjustments for several function
 implementations
To:     David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>, target-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arun Easi <arun.easi@cavium.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Jiang Yi <jiangyilism@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Tang Wenji <tang.wenji@zte.com.cn>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Varun Prakash <varun@chelsio.com>
References: <6163538d-a406-2f60-11a2-88b4694e9975@users.sourceforge.net>
 <c9a822a4-248e-c479-9118-4b8ffb1033b1@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20180222143624.7c7241a1@suse.de>
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <da62858f-37f5-1396-c561-ab68ba20c811@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:19:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180222143624.7c7241a1@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> You're 1/8 patch had an actual bug fix hidden amongst the style churn.

It showed the general possibility to adjust the source code structure
for the function “chap_server_compute_md5” also because of the usage
of the single jump label “out” before.


> I don't see any such fixes in the other patches.

This view is appropriate.

Further update steps show different transformation possibilities.


> My opinion from https://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg16342.html
> hasn't changed. FWIW, I'd prefer to see LIO adopt a policy similar to:
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Developer%27s_FAQ#How_not_to_start

It seems that you express a few aspects for general change resistance.
Will the circumstances evolve for similar software improvements?

Regards,
Markus