linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/29] constify scsi pci_device

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, 07 Aug 2017 13:28:18 -0400
From:   "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To:     Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
Cc:     Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mdr@....com,
        hare@...e.com, aacraid@...ptec.com, matthew@....cx,
        fthain@...egraphics.com.au, schmitzmic@...il.com,
        kashyap.desai@...adcom.com, sumit.saxena@...adcom.com,
        gotom@...ian.or.jp, mrochs@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        yokota@...lab.is.tsukuba.ac.jp, QLogic-Storage-Upstream@...ium.com,
        jinpu.wang@...fitbricks.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] constify scsi pci_device_id.

Johannes,

> Ultimately it's up to Martin and James but I don't see a hughe benefit
> in having it all in a separate patch.

Generally speaking, I prefer driver maintainers to be able to sign off
on changes to their code. So I tend to lean towards a per-driver
grouping.

However, having a bazillion identical commit messages is also really
annoying. So for automated changes like this, I'd rather just have a
single patch.

It needs to have a really good and comprehensive commit messages that
justifies the (sub) tree-wide change, though...

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering