linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/20] net: slight optimization of addr compare for some modules

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:22:40 +0800
From:	Ding Tianhong <dthxman@...il.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/20] net: slight optimization of addr compare for
 some modules

于 2013/12/24 23:05, Joe Perches 写道:
> On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 22:35 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> 于 2013/12/24 22:22, Joe Perches 写道:
>>> On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 19:27 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>> Use possibly more efficient ether_addr_equal_unaligned
>>>> and ether_addr_equal to instead of memcmp.
>>>
>>> A negative of adding so many different drivers in a single
>>> patch is that you miss sending patches to the named maintainers.
>>>
>>> Most of these below have separate individual maintainers.
>>
>> you mean that I should send below by separate patch?
> 
> I think yes,
> 
> You can send them to netdev, but cc'ing the named
> maintainers is a polite thing to do.
> 
> Sending individual patches can make it easier for
> maintainers to review the bits that are specific
> to their projects without having to wade through
> other changes that aren't relevant to them.
> 

OK, I will rebuild the 01/20 patch and make it to seperate patches follow your opinion.
and the rest of the patches I think is fit and no need to modify, if you agree with me,
I will send the rest 19 patch as the first step, and then seperate this patch as the second
step, send them in net-next.

Regards
Ding

>> It seemed that I 
>> misunderstood, I use the ./script/getmainter and found the only maintainer
>> is David, and others are support, so maybe I was wrong, but it really a big
>> patchset, could I send them by seperate patchset? I think it could be more
>> clearly.
> 
>>>From the MAINTAINERS file:
> 	S: Status, one of the following:
> 	   Supported:	Someone is actually paid to look after this.
> 	   Maintained:	Someone actually looks after it.
> 	   Odd Fixes:	It has a maintainer but they don't have time to do
> 			much other than throw the odd patch in. See below..
> 	   Orphan:	No current maintainer [but maybe you could take the
> 			role as you write your new code].
> 	   Obsolete:	Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means
> 			it has been replaced by a better system and you
> 			should be using that.
> 
> So "supported" is "higher/better" than "maintained".
> 

OK

> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/