linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 02/22] soundwire: fix SPDX license for header files

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:   Thu, 2 May 2019 12:14:38 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com,
        jank@...ence.com, joe@...ches.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/22] soundwire: fix SPDX license for header files

On 02-05-19, 08:31, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:46:49AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 01-05-19, 10:57, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > No C++ comments in .h files
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/soundwire/bus.h            | 4 ++--
> > >  drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.h | 4 ++--
> > >  drivers/soundwire/intel.h          | 4 ++--
> > 
> > As I said previously this touches subsystem header as well as driver
> > headers which is not ideal.
> 
> What?  Who knows that?  Who cares?

Well at least Pierre knows that very well :) He is designate Reviewer of
this subsystem.

> This is doing "one logical thing" to all of the needed files.  Your
> split of "this is a driver" vs. "this is a subsystem" split is _VERY_
> arbritary.
> 
> That's just too picky and assumes a subsystem-internal-knowledge much
> deeper than anyone submitting a normal cleanup patch would ever know.

Sure I do agree that this assumes internal knowledge but the contributor
knows the subsystem extremely well and he knows the different parts. For
drive by contributor I agree things would be not that picky :)

Even considering the patch series, some split was even file based and in
this case not done. All I ask is for consistency in the series proposed.

> I think you have swung too far to the "too picky" side, you might want
> to dial it back.

Sure given that this is code cleanup I will split them up and push.
Shouldn't take much of my time.

Thanks for the advise.
-- 
~Vinod