linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/22] ethtool netlink interface, part 1

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: <20190327151931.GD14297@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 16:19:31 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/22] ethtool netlink interface, part 1

Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:28:06PM CET, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 02:09:28PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Could you please perhaps split the patchset so it contains max ~15 patches?
>
>Would 1-17 still be acceptable? The thing is that patch 16 is the first
>where some "normal" notification (i.e. not EVENT one) is sent and
>patch 17 is the first implementation of a request modifying data.
>I believe having at least one example of both querying and setting data
>would help the review discussion.
>
>Or perhaps I could leave GET_INFO related patches (at least second and
>third) for later.

I think 17 is okay. Please split if possible.

>
>Michal