linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kallsyms: add kallsyms_show

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZHeDUgHZcA1eiEaA@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 10:26:42 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
        yhs@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com,
        jolsa@...nel.org, thunder.leizhen@...wei.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        vincenzopalazzodev@...il.com, ojeda@...nel.org, jgross@...e.com,
        brauner@...nel.org, michael.christie@...cle.com,
        samitolvanen@...gle.com, glider@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com,
        alan.maguire@...cle.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Onkarnath <onkarnath.1@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kallsyms: add kallsyms_show_value defination in
 all cases

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 02:17:45PM +0530, Maninder Singh wrote:
>  include/linux/kallsyms.h | 10 +++-----
>  kernel/Makefile          |  2 +-
>  kernel/kallsyms.c        | 35 ---------------------------
>  kernel/knosyms.c         | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You missed my point of the value of doing a move to a new file and
making it easier for folks to review. For instance I am giving up on
reviewing this patch alone because you made all these changes to a new
file *and* also included a functional change in it. Think about it from
a reviewer perspective, you want to make their life easier, not harder.

So, to do that you first move all the stuff into a new file with 0
functional changes. Then, you make a functional change as a separate
commit. So this becomes 3 commits then.

Sit back and then think after you have done this: does it make sense
then afterwards to re-arrange the order of the patches so to make it
easier for folks to review this patchset? If so what order should
I put those changes in? I don't know the answer to this question but
just think about it once you have done that.

For instance, confirming there was 0 functional changes to your first
patch actually took me about 3 minutes or so, how can you reduce the
time to review to a few seconds for a non-functional change? Work on
your commit logs and your changes in light of this so to make patch
review easier.

  Luis