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
| ||
|
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists