Re: SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-03-27 Thread Paul Moore
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:48 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I've made it through the first half (23/46) and of those >> I've merged patches …, 7, … > > It seems that you dropped this one while integrating the eighth > update step. Yes, my mistake, as I said in my

Re: SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-03-27 Thread Paul Moore
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:48 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I've made it through the first half (23/46) and of those >> I've merged patches …, 7, … > > It seems that you dropped this one while integrating the eighth > update step. Yes, my mistake, as I said in my response to that patch, I do

Re: SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-03-26 Thread SF Markus Elfring
> I've made it through the first half (23/46) and of those > I've merged patches …, 7, … It seems that you dropped this one while integrating the eighth update step. Regards, Markus

Re: SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-03-26 Thread SF Markus Elfring
> I've made it through the first half (23/46) and of those > I've merged patches …, 7, … It seems that you dropped this one while integrating the eighth update step. Regards, Markus

Re: [PATCH 00/46] SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-03-23 Thread Paul Moore
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:55 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +0100 > > Several update suggestions were taken into account > from static source code analysis. > > Markus Elfring

Re: [PATCH 00/46] SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-03-23 Thread Paul Moore
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:55 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +0100 > > Several update suggestions were taken into account > from static source code analysis. > > Markus Elfring (46): Hi Markus, Thank you for your patience with this

Re: [PATCH 00/46] SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-01-16 Thread Paul Moore
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Eric Paris wrote: > Well, not totally irrelevant, I just reserve the right to ignore Eric if I disagree with him ;) > All of the patches look good to me except most of those which change > the handling of `rc=`. I have a personal style

Re: [PATCH 00/46] SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-01-16 Thread Paul Moore
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Eric Paris wrote: > Well, not totally irrelevant, I just reserve the right to ignore Eric if I disagree with him ;) > All of the patches look good to me except most of those which change > the handling of `rc=`. I have a personal style preference for > > rc =

Re: [PATCH 00/46] SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-01-16 Thread Eric Paris
All of the patches look good to me except most of those which change the handling of `rc=`. I have a personal style preference for rc = -ENOMEM; val = kalloc(); if (!val) goto err; vs val = kalloc(); if (!val) { rc = -ENOMEM; goto err; } because it saves 1 line and I think the compiler

Re: [PATCH 00/46] SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-01-16 Thread Eric Paris
All of the patches look good to me except most of those which change the handling of `rc=`. I have a personal style preference for rc = -ENOMEM; val = kalloc(); if (!val) goto err; vs val = kalloc(); if (!val) { rc = -ENOMEM; goto err; } because it saves 1 line and I think the compiler

[PATCH 00/46] SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-01-15 Thread SF Markus Elfring
From: Markus Elfring Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +0100 Several update suggestions were taken into account from static source code analysis. Markus Elfring (46): Use kmalloc_array() in cond_init_bool_indexes() Delete an unnecessary return statement in

[PATCH 00/46] SELinux: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

2017-01-15 Thread SF Markus Elfring
From: Markus Elfring Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +0100 Several update suggestions were taken into account from static source code analysis. Markus Elfring (46): Use kmalloc_array() in cond_init_bool_indexes() Delete an unnecessary return statement in cond_compute_av() Improve size