linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/52] Remove rcu

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: <20180830114218.39743075@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:42:18 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/52] Remove rcu_state pointers for
 v4.20/v5.0

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:20:07 -0700
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:


> > And please see below for what the resulting diff would look like.  Is
> > this an improvement?  
> 
> Honestly, as long as the result after each commit compiles, I prefer the
> split version for ease of review.

You and I have different preferences for reviewing changes like this ;-)

I prefer the one patch (I do think it is an improvement). It's all
basically the exact same change. Looking at 40 different patches is
much more work IMHO, then just looking at a single patch, and testing
it, then testing 40 different patches. That's a lot of compiling.

I usually stop reviewing after 10 patches of the same kind, as I run
out of time to review them.

-- Steve