linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] staging: vt6655: Remove unused `i` increments

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: <0a4c26bdabadd666ddf124bbb767e5cc802af937.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 08 Nov 2021 09:57:25 +0000
From:   Karolina Drobnik <karolinadrobnik@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        forest@...ttletooquiet.net, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] staging: vt6655: Remove unused `i` increments

Hi Dan,

Thanks for taking a look at my patches.

On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 16:38 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 02:32:01PM +0000, Karolina Drobnik wrote:
> > Commit c569952d92ba ("staging: vt6655: Use incrementation in
> > `idx`")
> > rendered the incrementation of `i` outside of the loop unnecessary
> > so it can be deleted.
> > 
> 
> That commit hash is something that only exists on your system. 
> Commit hashes are stable once they hit Greg's tree (he only rebases 
> in extremely rarely cases).

Ok, I can rewrite the message but I'm not sure how should I refer to
another patch from my patch set. I followed these guidelines[1] but if
there's a different way of describing it then please let me know.

> This commit is cleaning something that was left in a different patch
> in the same patch set.  Just merge it into the original patch.  Don't
> make a mess and then fix it.

I tried adding more than one logical change per patch some time ago and
Greg asked me to stop doing this.

> It's tricky to know how to break up patches.  My suggestion is:
> patch 1: remove all the unnecesary (unsigned short) casts
> patch 2: merge the rest of patches 1-3 together and send it at once

Sounds good. If Greg is happy with your approach, I can merge these
patches, no problem. 


Thanks,
Karolina

---------------------------------------------------------------
[1] -
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L106