linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness

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]

Message-ID: <EF2E73589CA71846A15D0B2CDF79505D087B38B2AB@wm021.weinmann.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0100
From:	"Voss, Nikolaus" <N.Voss@...nmann.de>
To:	"'balbi@...com'" <balbi@...com>
CC:	"'linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org'" <'linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org'>,
	"'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'" 
	<'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'>,
	"'nicolas.ferre@...el.com'" <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	"'plagnioj@...osoft.com'" <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'ben-linux@...ff.org'" <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness

> > > IMHO, you should split this patch into three or more smaller patches.
> > > You're doing lots of different things in one commit and it'll be a
> > > pain to bisect should this cause any issues to anyone.
> >
> > I didn't split the patch because it is virtually a complete rewrite.
> > Due to the severe limitations of the old driver, I think it should
> > replace the old driver.
> 
> The final decision is up to Ben and/or Jean but I think we should always have
> incremental patches, not sure if we should allow big patches for the reasons
> above.

Splitting the patch implies the possibility to test each incremental
change independently, a possibility I don't have with my current setup as
the old driver didn't work at all for me (for example, my client needs
repeated start). I developed and tested the driver in an all or nothing-at-all
approach. Splitting the patch would be a purely academic exercise for me,
without any extra value beyond readability (which is admittedly bad now).
>From that point of view, I should maybe submit the patch as a new independent
driver (although it is a logical replacement for the old one)?

Niko

--
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/