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  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:   Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:41:17 +0100
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Sven Schmidt <4sschmid@...ormatik.uni-hamburg.de>
Cc:     minchan@...nel.org, ebiggers3@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        bongkyu.kim@....com, rsalvaterra@...il.com,
        sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
        davem@...emloft.net, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        anton@...msg.org, ccross@...roid.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lz4: fix performance regressions

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 04:20:00PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Sven,
> > 
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:16:18PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote:
> > > Fix performance regressions compared to current kernel LZ4
> > 
> > Your patch contains mostly style cleanups which certainly are welcome
> > but make the whole patch hard to review. These cleanups would have been
> > better into a separate, preliminary patch IMHO.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Willy
> 
> Hi Willy,
> 
> the problem was, I wanted to compare my version to the upstream LZ4 to find bugs (as with my last patch version: wrong indentation in LZ4HC 
> in two for loops). But since the LZ4 code is a pain to read, I made additional style cleanups "on the way".

Oh I can easily understand!

> Hope you can manage to review the patch though, because it is difficult to separate the cleanups now.

When I need to split a patch into pieces, usually what I do is that I
revert it, re-apply it without committing, then "git add -p", validate
all the hunks to be taken as the first patch (ie here the cleanups),
commit, then commit the rest as a separate one. It seems to me that the
fix is in the last few hunks though I'm not sure yet.

Thanks,
Willy

Powered by blists - more mailing lists