netdev - Re: [net-next.git 2/9] stmmac: add IEEE 1588-2002 PTP support

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:	Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:35:36 +0100
From:	Giuseppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
To:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bh74.an@...sung.com,
	Rayagond K <rayagond@...avyalabs.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next.git 2/9] stmmac: add IEEE 1588-2002 PTP support

On 3/10/2013 1:25 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 08:02:21AM +0100, Giuseppe CAVALLARO wrote:
>> On 3/8/2013 7:34 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
>
>>>> +
>>>> +static int enh_desc_get_rx_timestamp_status(struct dma_desc *p)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	/* FIXME if Enhance descriptor with 8 DWORDS is enabled */
>>>
>>> Why not fix these FIXMEs for the next respin?
>>
>> This is fixed in the patch #5 where we use the extended descriptors
>> for PTP2.
>
> If possible, it is nice for the reviewers and for the logic of the
> patch series to order the changes so that these FIXMEs go away.
>
>>>> +	struct hwtstamp_config config;
>>>> +	struct timespec now;
>>>> +	u64 temp = 0;
>>>
>>> You add this new code here, but you change it all around again a few
>>> patches later. Please just submit the final, combined version.
>>
>> we kept these separately because the patch #5 (for example) depends on
>> another one that adds the extended descriptor support. Also If I add
>> all the code in a single patch this will be very big. I had some
>> problems to review all separately. So I suspect that if we merge all
>> in a single patch this will not help (especially myself). At any rate,
>> tell me if you prefer to have a single patch. I can do that.
>
> I am not asking for bigger patches. It is good to arrange your patches
> in small steps, since that makes both reviewing and bisecting easier.

I tried to do that :-(

>
> However, for brand new code, I find it quite annoying to read one
> patch, and then to have it all re-written in the next one. (If a new
> function *only* grows during a patch series, that is easy to follow.)
>
> So what I would like to see is a logical, understandable series of
> small steps, but when new code appears, it is the real, final form.

Ok, I'll try to better re-organize the patches in the next version.

Thx a lot
Peppe

>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html