linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 27/28] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or

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: <5530BD84.4020304@profitbricks.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:00:04 +0200
From:	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
CC:	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tom Tucker <tom@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>,
	Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>,
	Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>,
	Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
	Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 27/28] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or_iboe()



On 04/16/2015 06:43 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:13:03AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
> 
>>> I would be very happy to see a patch that adds cap_ib_smi to the
>>> current tree and states 'This patch is tested to have no change on the
>>> binary compilation results'
>>
>> There are too much reform there (per-dev to per-port), I guess the binary
>> will changed more or less anyway...
> 
> I think this patch series is huge, and everytime someone new looks at
> it small functional errors seem to pop up..

This is a big changing after all :-P

As Doug suggested at very beginning, all these changing are necessary
in order to eliminate the usage of old inferring method, then we will
have a clean stage for next reform.

And since it's big, I tried to classified them according to logical,
to help us review more easily, I'm not sure but compress the series
may increasing the difficulty of reviewing...

> 
> Doing something to reduce the review surface would be really helpful
> here. Not changing the same line twice, using tools too perform these
> transforms and then assert the patch is a NOP because .. tools. Some
> other idea?

Actually the main reform work finished in 1#~15#, the rest are just
introducing cap_XX which we only need to check the description and
usage, thus I'd like to suggest we focus on reviewing 1#~15#, after all,
the rest won't introducing Bug and we can edit them at any time :-P

Frankly speaking I think it's a good thing that we locate errors at
this moment, whenever someone find issues, that means the patch has
been reviewed thoroughly, I think may be just few more version, this
series will become stable ;-)

Regards,
Michael Wang


> 
> Jason
> 
--
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/