linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] swiotlb-xen: add struct device* parameter to xen_phys_to

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2006081539550.2815@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jun 2020 15:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>, jgross@...e.com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tamas@...engyel.com, roman@...eda.com,
        Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] swiotlb-xen: add struct device* parameter to
 xen_phys_to_bus

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 03:22:39PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...inx.com>
> > 
> > The parameter is unused in this patch.
> > No functional changes.
> 
> This looks weird.  I'm pretty sure you are going to use it later, but
> why not just add the argument when it actually is used?

It is just a matter of taste. Xen reviewers tend to ask for splitting
patches into small chunks, especially large verbose non-functional
changes like renaming or adding parameters. It is supposed to make it
easier to review, to make it easier not to get distracted by
renaming/non-functional changes while looking at the important changes.
As a contributor, I am happy either way.