linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: improve DTS style

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: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:06:15 +0200
From: Justin Swartz <justin.swartz@...ingedge.co.za>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>, Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>, Rob Herring
 <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>, Matthias Brugger
 <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
 <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: improve DTS style

On 2024-03-18 11:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/03/2024 16:43, Justin Swartz wrote:
>> On 2024-03-17 17:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Objections to what? Coding style? Coding style is defined so you 
>>> either
>>> implement it or not... and even if someone disagrees with one line
>>> swap,
>>> why it cannot be done like for every contribution: inline?
>> 
>> I had been asked to include empty lines when I had left them out when
>> I had contributed a patch regarding the serial nodes, which resulted 
>> in
>> a second version of that patch.
> 
> I don't understand why would that matter. It's expected Linux
> development process to receive comments inline in the patch.


>>> Organize your patches how described in submitting patches: one per
>>> logical change. Logical change is to reorder all properties in one
>>> file,
>>> without functional impact.
>> 
>> If I had accidentally deleted or modified an attribute in the process
>> of cleanup, this could have had a functional impact. It's easier to
> 
> How is it relevant? But you did not and splitting simple cleanup
> one-line-per-patch is not affecting this. Just because you could make
> mistake it does not affect patch readability at all.
> 
> Nothing improved with your patch split.


>> notice this sort of omission when the wall of text you're confronted
>> with is as small as possible, and not multiple pages long.
> 
> We are used to handle some length of patches. Multiple scrolls for
> obvious cleanups are not problems. Why aren't you applying this 
> approach
> to everything? Add a new driver with one function per patch and then
> finally Makefile? It would be bisectable and "easy to read" plus
> absolutely unmanageable.


>> But for future reference: is it not enough for the Reviewed-by: 
>> trailer
>> to be sent in response to the cover letter of a patch set if a 
>> reviewer
>> has looked at the entire set?
> 
> Sure, one can. I still need to open and download 14 patches.

Thanks for your input.

I can imagine how these sets of very minor changes might greatly reduce
your signal-to-noise ratio as an upstream maintainer.

I'll try your suggested approach next time.