| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1217924609.24157.170.camel@pasglop> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:23:29 +1000 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> To: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, rth@...ddle.net, paulus@...ba.org, fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, muli@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] sparc64: use iommu_num_pages function in IOMMU code > I didn't want to change multiple architectures with a single patch so I > splitted it up. The whole renaming in the beginning is to make the patch > series bisectable. But if its no problem to change multiple > architectures with one patch I will those changes in a single patch next > time. I wouldn't say there's a strict rule. It's a balance to find between the complexity of the patch, the risk of breaking archs, etc... In your case, the added churn of going through a temporary renamed helper represents more, imho, than the risk of breakage of what is a fairly trivial patch in the first place. Also, it only affects a few archs. So it's simpler or everybody to deal with a single patch even if that means it -might- need a rev or two in case it does indeed break something... Ben. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists