netdev - Re: [PATCH V6 net-next 2/2] smc: introduce socket family AF

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1443166033.6021.6.camel@BR9GV9YG.de.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:27:13 +0200
From:	Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	utz.bacher@...ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, ursula.braun@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 net-next 2/2] smc: introduce socket family AF_SMC

On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 11:44 -0700, David Miller wrote:
...
> This is a huge and complex submission and I'm already burnt out
> reading the changes thus far.
> 
> You have a lot to fix up and you can expect many revisions to be
> necessary before these changes are ready for integration upstream.
> And that's if you are lucky and someone actually continues to review
> this work.
> 
Hi Dave,

I appreciate the time you have already spent analyzing my SMC code. It
is large and complex, and I understand that you are not willing to spend
the time to review the overall code in future iterations. Before me
spending more time on SMC, I need a hint about *your* preferred way to
submit that large piece of code in general, and about the overall future
of SMC:

- Supposed the SMC code is improved to an acceptable quality and maybe
even gets additional reviewers, are you willing to accept the code at
all, given it is self-contained (our own can of worms, as you said)?
 
- I realized that I have to split up the large chunk of code into
smaller patches. Do you prefer going with a first minimal self contained
patch set first, providing basic communication capabilities, and then
incrementally add features like failover, setsockopt, urgent-data etc.
over time? Or, on submissions, do you always want to see a patch series
of the full set of features and values according to the SMC design?

Kind regards,
Ursula

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html