linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/30] staging: rtl8723bs: remove RT

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: <20210403172858.GA2397@agape.jhs>
Date:   Sat, 3 Apr 2021 19:28:59 +0200
From:   Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/30] staging: rtl8723bs: remove RT_TRACE logs in
 core/*

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:17:37AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 17:21 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:02:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 11:13 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > > > This patchset removes all RT_TRACE usages in core/ files.
> > > 
> > > and hal and include and os_dep
> > 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > I was just about to send the second patchset relative to hal/ files.
> > The whole has been split up in directories in order to reduce the
> > number of patch per patchset
> 
> > It's a good idea, but the patches relative to RT_TRACE removal
> > could be huge
> 
> That's really not a significant issue.
> Simplicity in review is also important.
> Mechanization of patch creation can reduce review efforts.

Maybe I wrongly associated simplicity with patch dimensions, but maybe
for patches this simple have expert reviewers some tool for
automatic review?

Is automatic review possible?

> 
> Few people are actively working on this particular codebase.
> As far as I can tell no logical defect is being corrected here.
> None of this is likely to be backported.
> 
> Applying each individual patch has a 'cost' in maintainer time
> and review effort.

got it

> 
> Fewer patches create lower overall costs.
> 
> Good luck...
> 

I like your idea, and sure I will work in that direction,
for this particular case I wait maintainer's opinion. If
patchsets will be rejected again I will apply the scheme you
proposed, if it will be accepted I will apply the scheme for next
patchsets.

Thank you,

fabio