linux-kernel - Re: ACPI-APEI-HEST: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

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: <0b722fa0-6bb3-812f-66ce-8db3b91ed107@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:21:13 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, trivial@...nel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: ACPI-APEI-HEST: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

> Well, as I said elsewhere, if you make the same type of change in
> multiple places in one piece of code (or code maintained by the same maintainer),

I can imagine that my update suggestions will also trigger some additional
development efforts. I assume that some contributors appreciate
fine-grained patch series, don't they?


> you make it easier to review those changes if they go in one patch.

It might look convenient. But I find that there are more aspects to consider
for a better patch granularity.

Regards,
Markus