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  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, 27 Oct 2013 23:10:27 +0100
From:	Veaceslav Falico <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] bonding: patchset for rcu use in bonding

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 05:44:58PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>From: Veaceslav Falico <>
>Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 22:10:48 +0100
>> All the changelogs for the patches are *the same*, and, while they try
>> to
>> explain what's done overall, the don't explain what's done per-patch,
>> why
>> it's done and why is it safe to move those locks around.
>He did say so, he listed in fact three alternative ways to fix the
>locking problem and then explciitly stated which of the three he

He just rephrased me - .

And still the patches didn't say how he did it and why is it safe/good to
do it the way he did it. That's, basically, code without commit messages,
which touches really sensitive parts. As I've said in the above link, it's
really hard to review them this way.

>I would have preferred that he did all of this in the initial 0/N
>patch posting, but I can't defer forever.

Maybe I'm too picky. Anyway - understood, thanks.
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