linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] Staging: olpc_dcon: replace some magic numbers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAF92urrHpaJpTv3qQf55ENTjVqkJdX9ewxHQaqP7oWV4h23YFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:04:24 +0200
From:	Jens Frederich <jfrederich@...il.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jon Nettleton <jon.nettleton@...il.com>,
	Daniel Drake <dsd@...top.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Staging: olpc_dcon: replace some magic numbers

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 09:40:38AM +0200, Jens Frederich wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 09:34:55PM +0200, Jens Frederich wrote:
>> >> The 0x42 initialize squence 0x101 is wrong.  According to
>> >> the specification Bit 8 is reserved, thus not in use.
>> >> I removed it.
>> >
>> > Really these code changes should be in a separate patch and labeled
>> > "Don't set reserved bit." instead of hidden away inside a cleanup
>> > patch.
>> >
>>
>> The patch is applied. Still, good to know. It's not so easy to find the
>> right patch granularity as newbie.
>>
>
> Yeah.  Staging is for educating people about kernel process as much
> as it is about writing code.
>

Yeah, I know it.  Isn't easy to dive in the kernel process.  I'm writing
lots of in house code (vector.com), but the development process is
very different.

> The rule here is "Don't mix code changes into a cleanup patches."
> What we want is if you have a bug then you can look through
> `git log --oneline` output and guess which patch introduced the bug.
> This patch is a cleanup patch so it shouldn't introduce any code
> changes or any bugs.
>
> Meanwhile, if you are making a code change you can make any cleanups
> you need to in order to do the change.  Also if there is an existing
> checkpatch warning on any of the lines you touch, then that's ok to
> fix as well.  Or if there are tiny related changes than that's fine.
>
> There are three problems with big patches:
> 1) It breaks the --oneline summary to mix two things into one patch.
> 2) It makes the patch harder to review.  For example, sometimes
>    people fix a bug and rename 10 variables as well.
> 3) The more lines your patch is, the more chance there is that we
>    will reject it based on one of those lines.  You don't like
>    redoing patches and we don't like making people redo them.  So
>    small patches are better and put the more controversial ones at
>    the end so the first patches can be applied.
>
> No one totally agrees what "small closely related cleanups" means so
> it's better to be conservative.
>

Thanks for the detail information, you're right.  I know it, it's a general
problem.

thanks,
jens
--
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/