linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] x86: assembly, use SYM_FUNC

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170412065211.GA16544@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:52:11 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] x86: assembly, use SYM_FUNC_END for functions


* Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:

> On 04/10/2017, 09:35 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > The code should be in a mergeable state after each patch.  If only
> > patches 1-3 were merged, the code would be in an inconsistent state,
> > with some functions having confusing ENTRY/SYM_FUNC_END pairs.  That
> > complicates git history and also makes it harder to review each patch.
> > 
> > It would be cleaner to separate things out.  First, convert ENTRY/END
> > functions to use ENDPROC, which is a minor bug fix.  Then they can be
> > converted to the new SYM_FUNC_START/END macros in a separate patch.
> 
> OTOH I don't think touching and reviewing the same place twice is what
> actually maintainers would want to see. But as I wrote earlier, I can do
> whatever is preferred -- therefore I am asking before I start reworking
> the patches: maintainers, what do you prefer?

I'd lean towards Josh's suggestion of a more granular series. Having to review 
more is sometimes less, if the patches are more focused.

Thanks,

	Ingo