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: <CAMRc=Mck=rAJ6jbm57ZecJWNvOYR5pjLy0JnyxFzA8kFvoK7Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:31:37 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
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

2018-09-10 11:55 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>:
>
>
> 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.
>

About that: there are no users of nvmem_device_cell_read/write()
currently and with the new API I'm not sure this is still needed. Are
you alright with removing those two?

Bart

> 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
>>
>