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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 10:08:27 +0100 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, NĂcolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com> Cc: kernel@...labora.com, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>, Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable missing kconfigs for mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi-juniper On 09/11/2022 08:28, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022, at 00:22, NĂcolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: >> mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi-juniper is one of the devices set up to run tests >> on KernelCI, but several of its drivers are currently disabled in the >> defconfig. This series enables all the missing kconfigs on the defconfig >> to get everything probing on that machine so that it can be fully tested >> by KernelCI. > > The changes all look fine, but I would recommend not separating it > out into 13 patches when you are doing just one thing here. > > As a general rule, if you keep saying the same things in each > patch description, it is usually an indication that they should > be combined. Similarly, if you find describing unrelated changes > ("also, ..."), that would be an indication that patches should > be split up. I agree. Descriptions you wrote are useful - they explain why you are doing it - but it got all really too detailed, just for defconfigs. One commit per one symbol is a bit too much... Best regards, Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists