linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover

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: <5678F88B.7060201@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:15:23 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in
 mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

>> 6. Apply a recommendation from the script "checkpatch.pl".
> 
> That's 6 different things, shouldn't this be 6 different patches?
> 
> please redo.

Dan Carpenter requested to squash the previous update steps 5 and 6
into a single patch for better source code review.
Now I see further software development challenges to increase
the patch granularity even more as you suggest.

Which route would Lustre developers like to follow?

Regards,
Markus
--
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/