linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] nvmem: remove unused APIs

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: <3dbd65e5-c948-a784-0362-930fc41b840e@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:55:23 +0100
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Alban Bedel <albeu@...e.fr>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] nvmem: remove unused APIs



On 10/09/18 09:43, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> this series. Later patches are MUCH cleaner thanks to this removal and
>>> I believe it makes them easier for review.
>> Am not sure about that, it definitely did not help me!
>>
> Why exactly? Aren't clean patches resulting from this removal easier
> to read then if they'd also have to take into account the burden of
> existing code that will be changes anyway later? I really don't see
> why you insist on removing this.

Here are few reasons:

1> TBH, This cleanup patch removes more than one feature from nvmem 
subsystem.
Ex: it remove ability to add static cell from nvmem config, secondly it 
removed ability to read/write cells directly using nvmem_cell_info.

2> If you do changes as part of each patch, it will be much traceable on 
what is changed exactly and will allow much better review, and 
understand the reasoning.

Having a clean start and writing code on top of it is alway nice, but we 
will definitely miss things in review in this particular instance.


thanks,
srini

> 
> Best regards,
> Bart
>