linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 mips/linux.git] firmware: bcm47xx

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: <c66d6d99-affd-f833-1689-32394bc6a548@milecki.pl>
Date:   Fri, 5 Mar 2021 12:56:55 +0100
From:   Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To:     Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@...at.org>
Cc:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivek Unune <npcomplete13@...il.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 mips/linux.git] firmware: bcm47xx_nvram: refactor
 finding & reading NVRAM

On 05.03.2021 12:47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:16 AM Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl> wrote:
>> On 05.03.2021 10:58, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 6:55 AM Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Use meaningful variable names (e.g. "flash_start", "res_size" instead
>>>>      of e.g. "iobase", "end")
>>>> 2. Always operate on "offset" instead of mix of start, end, size, etc.
>>>
>>> "instead of a mix"
>>>
>>>> 3. Add helper checking for NVRAM to avoid duplicating code
>>>> 4. Use "found" variable instead of goto
>>>> 5. Use simpler checking of offsets and sizes (2 nested loops with
>>>>      trivial check instead of extra function)
>>>
>>> This could be a series of trivial patches, why did you choose to make a mixed
>>> bag harder to review?
>>
>> It's a subjective thing and often a matter of maintainer taste. I can
>> say that after contributing to various Linux subsystems. If you split a
>> similar patch for MTD subsystem you'll get complains about making
>> changes too small & too hard to review (sic!).
> 
> Fine. MTD subsystem developers are probably smarter than I'm :)
> 
>> This isn't a bomb really: 63 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> 
> Too many changes at once for my brain stack doesn't mean others are
> willing to review it. But to me that means each time I'll have to pass over
> it while bisecting or reviewing git history I'll suffer the same overflow.
> Anyway, matter of taste as you said.

If I hear another voice for splitting this change into smaller patches
I'm 100% happy to do so. Honestly!

I just don't know if by splitting I won't annoy other people by making
changes too small.

Please speak up! :)