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

Message-ID: <4f686c1babf19c42592751b6a11896c9@milecki.pl>
Date:   Sat, 06 Mar 2021 09:24:58 +0100
From:   Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
Cc:     Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@...at.org>,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        "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 2021-03-06 09:00, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 12:56:55PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> 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! :)
> 
> please split it. IMHO the current is patch is hard to review, because 
> of the
> different changes mixed together.

Will do, thank you for comments Philippe, Thomas!