linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen-pciback: clean up {bar,rom}

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]

Date:	Mon, 27 Jun 2016 01:24:31 -0600
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc:	"xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"Juergen Gross" <JGross@...e.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen-pciback: clean up
 {bar,rom}_init()

>>> On 24.06.16 at 17:01, <david.vrabel@...rix.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/16 07:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> - drop unused function parameter of read_dev_bar()
>> - drop rom_init() (now identical to bar_init())
>> - fold read_dev_bar() into its now single caller
>> - simplify determination of 64-bit memory resource
>> - use const and unsigned
> 
> Please split this in 5 separate patches for easier review.
> 
> Especially as often anyone writing "simplify" means "accidentally break".

So this is directly opposite of what Boris had asked for - originally
there were two patches, which I folded upon his request (and
which he gave his R-b for already). May I ask the two of you to
first settle on a consistent set of expectations to patches like this?

Jan