linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 4/5] net/x25: fix restart request/confirm handling

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 01:31:50 -0800
From:   Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com>
To:     Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
Cc:     Andrew Hendry <andrew.hendry@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Linux X25 <linux-x25@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 4/5] net/x25: fix restart request/confirm handling

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:27 PM Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > When you submit future patch series, can you try ensuring the code to
> > be in a completely working state after each patch in the series? This
> > makes reviewing the patches easier. After the patches get applied,
> > this also makes tracing bugs (for example, with "git bisect") through
> > the commit history easier.
>
> Well I thought that's what patch series are for:
> Send patches that belong together and should be applied together.
>
> Of course I will try to make each patch work on its own, but this is not
> always possible with major changes or ends up in monster patches.
> And nobody wants that.

Thanks! I admit that this series is a big change and is not easy to
split up properly. If I were you, I may end up sending a very big
patch first, and then follow up with small patches for "restart
request/confirm handling" and "add/remove x25_neigh on
device-register/unregister instead of device-up/down". (The little
change in x25_link_established should belong to the first big patch
instead of "restart request/confirm handling".)

But making each patch work on its own is indeed preferable. I see
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
says:
When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care
to ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in
the series. Developers using git bisect to track down a problem can
end up splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank
you if you introduce bugs in the middle.