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:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 13:15:31 +0200
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: dts: qcom: ipq8064: reorganize node order and
 sort them



On 19.07.2022 12:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 10:19, Christian Marangi wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 12:22:24PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19.07.2022 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 19/07/2022 11:59, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 at 12:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/07/2022 17:38, Christian Marangi wrote:
>>>>>>> Reorganize node order and sort them by address.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was picked from for-next qcom branch [1]. Reorganize dtsi as requested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/?h=for-next
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this is picked by qcom branch, no need to resend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see value in such reshuffle. Reviewing is not possible and you
>>>>>> did not mention tests (results should be equal).
>>>>>
>>>>> The value is usual for all the cleanups: make it follow the
>>>>> established practice.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure this is established practice?
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>  New DTSI files (see SC8280XP,
>>>> sm8450 although sc7280 looked ordered) do not always follow it, so why
>>>> imposing it for existing code?
>>> Perhaps it slipped through review.. Partially my bad.
>>>
>>>
>>> Such reshuffle can cause conflicts thus
>>>> stops parallel development. Review is close to impossible...
>>> Almost any addition or removal also causes conflicts, because git is
>>> not as smart as we would like it to be. If the commit is structured
>>> properly (i.e. it *only* changes the order and nothing else),
>>> decompiling the dtbs before and after applying it and using a tool
>>> like meld that can find similar chunks of text at different offsets
>>> review is definitely possible, though not very pleasant (you can't
>>> just diff them, as order is preserved & phandles change due to that)
>>> as you have to look at it manually and can't tell much by just taking
>>> a look at the email.
>>>
>>
>> Can you give me an example of such tool? So I can put these data in the
>> commit description. I have to rebase this anyway as more changes got
>> merged so it might be a good idea to add more info about how this won't
>> make actualy changes.
>>
> 
> scripts/dtc/dtx_diff
> fdtdump + diff
Thanks for sharing this.. way better than my crude method..

Konrad
> 
> There should be an empty diff from at least one of methods above. If you
> have a difference, I am not sure how can we verify this.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ