linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] spi: Refactor spi_stop

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: <58c2f209-1553-46ec-a471-2f33afb20139@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:21:55 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] spi: Refactor spi_stop_queue()

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:08:10AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:49:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The refactoring makes code less verbose and easier to read.
> > Besides that the binary size is also reduced, which sounds
> > like a win-win case:
> > 
> >   add/remove: 0/1 grow/shrink: 2/2 up/down: 210/-226 (-16)
> >   Function                            old     new   delta
> >   spi_destroy_queue                    42     156    +114
> >   spi_controller_suspend              101     197     +96
> >   spi_unregister_controller           346     319     -27
> >   spi_register_controller            1834    1794     -40
> >   spi_stop_queue                      159       -    -159
> >   Total: Before=49230, After=49214, chg -0.03%
> 
> Hmm... Other more recent patches went through, is this lost in cracks?

Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
for review.  People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so 
on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
please allow at least a couple of weeks for review.  If there have been
review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.

Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
for the subsystem are normally handled.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)