linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm_tis: Clean up the force=1 module parameter

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: <20151201174342.GD691@obsidianresearch.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:43:42 -0700
From:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@...fujitsu.com>,
	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm_tis: Clean up the force=1 module parameter

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:35:08AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

> In addition I want this fix as a single patch, not as two-patch set.
> The first patch might have made sense when the fix was being developed
> but now it's just really akward change.

No, you are not in tune with the kernel standard when you are
suggesting merging these patches. Each patch is self contained, encompasses a
single idea/change, and is justifiable on its own.

Ie SubmittingPatches explains:

 The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
 change that can be verified by reviewers.  Each patch should be
 justifiable on its own merits.

If anything the larger patch should be split, because there is alot
going on there..

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/