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:	Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:29:13 -0500
From:	Scott Wood <>
To:	Kumar Gala <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7 v2] fs_enet: Be an of_platform device when CONFIG_PPC_CPM_NEW_BINDING is set.

On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 11:36:24AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> This patch seems to mix moving to using the device tree directly w/o  
> some other modifications.  Can it be broken into those two changes as  
> they'd be easier to review.

The last iteration of these patches, I got complaints that I was
splitting them up too fine-grained.  I don't think it's productive to
keep iterating on exactly how much is in any given patch until I hit the
right combination of granularity and whoever happens to be reading e-mail
when I submit.

In the case of this particular patch, most of what isn't directly related
to converting to using the device tree directly is fixing problems that I
encountered in doing so -- what value is there in coming up with
intermediary versions that kind-of-sort-of make sense, on a good day, if
you don't look to closely?  The existing codebase is crap, and if every
logical change were its own patch, the patchset would be ten times as
long, and take ten times as long to produce.  Note that I did separate
what I thought were the more relevant-to-review and/or highly indpendent

The major thing I see in this patch that could have been usefully
separated out was the conversion of mii_bitbang.c to use the generic code
introduced by patch 1.  However, that would require retrieving and
retesting the intermediate version, and I don't think there's sufficient
damage to reviewability (apart perhaps from diff's stupidity in thinking
that a single "{" is relevant common ground between completely unrelated
chunks of code) relative to the cost in preparing such a split.

Is there anything of the actual content of the patch that you object to,
or have a question about?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists