linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable missing kconfigs for mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi-juniper

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 09:53:46 -0500
From:   Nícolas F. R. A. Prado 
        <nfraprado@...labora.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        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 Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 10:08:27AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/11/2022 08:28, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022, at 00:22, Nícolas 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...

Okay, thank you both for the feedback. Given that this is a contentious file,
splitting independent symbols throughout the commits seemed to be more friendly
to possible merge conflicts. But you're right that there's a single overarching
goal for all the changes, so I'll join them all into a single commit as
suggested.

Thanks,
Nícolas