linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 04/11] Documentation/hwmon: Revise hwmon kernel API reference

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: <ZFe4TfGAcuIfXUiO@equiv.tech>
Date:   Sun, 7 May 2023 07:40:13 -0700
From:   James Seo <james@...iv.tech>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 04/11] Documentation/hwmon: Revise hwmon kernel API
 reference

On Sat, May 06, 2023 at 06:52:09AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> There is a lot of nnecessary churn in your patches, where you reformat entire
> paragrahps just to add a few "``". This makes it almost impossible to identify
> the actual changes. For me it means that the review burden is so much that I'll
> probably never get to actually review those changes.
> 
> Please split the changes into subjects, following the "one logical change per
> patch" rule, and please refrain from changing entire paragraphs when adding
> markups. Also, a reference to the markup rules explaining if and when markups
> are warranted would be nice. For example, I have no idea why "hwmon" would
> warrant a markup.
> 
> Guenter
>

Ack. Thanks for this. It's the sort of feedback I was hoping to receive
by submitting as an RFC series.

James