linux-kernel - Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes

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:	Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:02:14 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jeremy@...p.org,
	hughd@...gle.com, ngupta@...are.org,
	Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, JBeulich@...ell.com,
	Kurt Hackel <kurt.hackel@...cle.com>, npiggin@...nel.dk,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
	matthew@....cx, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jackdachef@...il.com,
	cyclonusj@...il.com
Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure
 changes

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> wrote:

> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [mailto:kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com]
> > Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes
> 
> Hi Kamezawa-san --
> 
> Domo arigato for the review and feedback!
> 
> > Hmm....could you modify mm/swapfile.c and remove 'static' in the same patch ?
> 
> I separated out this header patch because I thought it would
> make the key swap data structure changes more visible.  Are you
> saying that it is more confusing?

Yes. I know you add a new header file which is not included but..


At reviewing patch, I check whether all required changes are done.
In this case, you turned out the function to be externed but you
leave the function definition as 'static'. This unbalance confues me.

I always read patches from 1 to END. When I found an incomplete change
in patch 1, I remember it and need to find missng part from patch 2->End. 
This makes my review confused a little.

In another case, when a patch adds a new file, I check Makefile change.
Considering dependency, the patch order should be

	[patch 1] Documentaion/Config
	[patch 2] Makefile + add new file.

But plesse note: This is my thought. Other guys may have other idea.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/