linux-kernel - Re: ACPI-video: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

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

Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:21:18 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: ACPI-video: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:28 AM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> I'd prefer this to be combined into fewer patches
>> that each will address several issues of one type,
>
> I understand your concern a bit in principle.
>
>
>> ie. put all label renames into one patch,
>
> Are any of my update suggestions controversial here?

Well, the label renames have a little value in general IMO, but that
depends on a particular case.

Anyway, if there's something I don't like in particular, I'll let you know.

>> all size determination improvements into another one and so on.
>
> I am unsure about the acceptance for the selected software change opportunities.
> So I chose a very specific patch granularity intentionally.
>
> I tend to provide some change ideas for each affected function
> implementation individually. I imagine that this way should support
> the recombination of update steps to some degree already, shouldn't it?

However, it's a pain to review 20 patches if you could review 4 instead.

Please take the reviewers' time into consideration too.

Thanks,
Rafael