linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen-pciback: clean up {bar, rom}

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:	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:42:33 +0100
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
CC:	Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen-pciback: clean up {bar,
 rom}_init()

On 27/06/16 08:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 24.06.16 at 17:01, <david.vrabel@...rix.com> wrote:
>> On 07/06/16 07:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> - drop unused function parameter of read_dev_bar()
>>> - drop rom_init() (now identical to bar_init())
>>> - fold read_dev_bar() into its now single caller
>>> - simplify determination of 64-bit memory resource
>>> - use const and unsigned
>>
>> Please split this in 5 separate patches for easier review.
>>
>> Especially as often anyone writing "simplify" means "accidentally break".
> 
> So this is directly opposite of what Boris had asked for - originally
> there were two patches, which I folded upon his request (and
> which he gave his R-b for already). May I ask the two of you to
> first settle on a consistent set of expectations to patches like this?

SubmittingPatches section 3 is clear on what is required.

If your commit message is a list of bullet points it's a pretty big hint
that none of the changes are related.

David