linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] serial: exar: add CTI board and port setup functions

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: <2024041248-enjoyable-barterer-4f01@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:28:20 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Parker Newman <parker@...est.io>
Cc: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
	Parker Newman <pnewman@...necttech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] serial: exar: add CTI board and port setup
 functions

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:19:26AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:57:01 +0300 (EEST)
> Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, parker@...est.io wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Parker Newman <pnewman@...necttech.com>
> > > 
> > > - Removed old port setup function and replaced with UART specific ones
> > > - Added board setup functions for CTI boards
> > > - Replaced CONNECT_DEVICE macro with CTI_EXAR_DEVICE and CTI_PCI_DEVICE  
> > 
> > In general, you should try to do refactoring in a preparatory patch (one 
> > refactoring thing at a time) and add new stuff in another patch in 
> > the series. I didn't go to figure out how much it applies to those three 
> > items because you likely know the answer immediately.
> > 
> > > - Moved "generic rs485" support up in the file  
> > 
> > Please do this in a separate patch.
> > 
> 
> Will do.
> 
> > 
> > Another general level problem with your series is that it adds functions 
> > x, y, etc. without users, whereas the expected way of doing things would 
> > be to add the functions in the change they are getting used so it's easier 
> > to follow what's going on.
> > 
> > I believe if you separate the refactoring & moving code around into own 
> > changes (no functional change type patches), the new stuff is much 
> > smaller so there is no need to split that illogically into incomplete 
> > fragments in some patches.
> > 
> > --
> >  i.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback, I am new to the mailing lists and am trying to balance
> what you mention above with not having giant patches. 

It's a fine line, and takes a while to learn, but as a first cut, this
was pretty good, I didn't have any major problems with the structure of
it, so nice work.

thanks,

greg k-h