linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/25] tcp: Use BIT() for OPTION

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]

Date:   Thu, 4 Nov 2021 00:19:02 +0200
From:   Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
        Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@...sta.com>,
        Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@...le.com>,
        Ivan Delalande <colona@...sta.com>,
        Priyaranjan Jha <priyarjha@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/25] tcp: Use BIT() for OPTION_* constants

On 11/3/21 4:31 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/1/21 10:34 AM, Leonard Crestez wrote:
>> Extending these flags using the existing (1 << x) pattern triggers
>> complaints from checkpatch.
>>
>> Instead of ignoring checkpatch modify the existing values to use BIT(x)
>> style in a separate commit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com>
>> ---
>>   net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> This one could be sent outside of this patch set since you are not
> adding new values. Patch sets > 20 are generally frowned upon; sending
> this one separately helps get the number down.

In the past I've seen maintainers pick small cleanups and fixes from 
longer series that otherwise need further discussion.

Not sure if this practice is also common for netdev so I posted this 
patch separately.

--
Regards,
Leonard