linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/39] mtd: nand: denali: remove more unused struct members

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: <CAK7LNATbm0nyh668oMHvsC1vG+SQt6tLhCk1qU+xnRL+5SzRxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:16:35 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/39] mtd: nand: denali: remove more unused struct members

Hi Boris,

2016-11-28 0:12 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:05:50 +0900
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
> Please add a description here.
>
> Also, this commit tends to validate my fears: you should have wait for
> the full rework/cleanup to be done before submitting the first round of
> cleanups. Indeed, commit c4ae0977f57d ("mtd: nand: denali: remove unused
> struct member denali_nand_info::idx") was removing one of these unused
> fields, leaving 2 of them behind.

Right.
No difference except that
denali->idx was initialized to zero(, but not referenced).

I could squash the two patches.

> While I like when things I clearly separated in different commits, when
> you push the logic too far, you end up with big series which are not
> necessarily easier to review, and several commits that are achieving
> the same goal...

I must admit that I hurried up in posting the first round.
But, please note I did not ask you to pick it up for v4.10-rc1.
After all, it was your choice whether you picked it soon or
waited until you saw the big picture.
You could have postponed it until v4.11-rc1 if you had wanted.

My idea was, I'd like to get feedback earlier
(especially from Intel engineers).

I fear that I do not reveal anything until I complete my work.
If I am doing wrong in the early patches in my big series,
I might end up with lots of effort to turn around.

I dropped various Intel-specific things,
for example commit c9e025843242 ("mtd: nand: denali: remove
detect_partition_feature()")
removed the whole function I do not understand.
There was possibility that it might be locally used by Intel platforms.

If I had gotten negative comments for removal, I'd have needed more efforts
to not break any old functions.

As a result, nobody was opposed to delete such things.
So, I can confidently continue my work on cleaner and more *stable* base.

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada