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: <4EB7D3C0.9070706@atmel.com>
Date:	Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:49:04 +0100
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	"Voss, Nikolaus" <N.Voss@...nmann.de>, balbi@...com
CC:	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	plagnioj@...osoft.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness

On 11/07/2011 01:04 PM, Jean Delvare :
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0100, Voss, Nikolaus wrote:
>>>>> 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.
> 
> The final call is obviously to Ben, not me, as this driver falls under
> his jurisdiction. But for what it's worth, I consider the small-steps
> rule void when it comes to fixing a plain broken driver by almost fully
> rewriting it. The reviewer should really review the resulting code
> rather than the patch. If it makes everybody happier, then killing the
> old code completely first is certainly an option.

I agree with this.

-- 
Nicolas Ferre
--
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/