netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 00/16] net: fec: cleanup and fixes

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: <56CF264E.2070903@boundarydevices.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:05:34 -0700
From:	Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@...ndarydevices.com>
To:	Joshua Clayton <stillcompiling@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, B38611@...escale.com,
	fabio.estevam@...escale.com, l.stach@...gutronix.de,
	andrew@...n.ch, tremyfr@...il.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, laci@...ndarydevices.com,
	shawnguo@...nel.org, johannes@...solutions.net,
	sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 00/16] net: fec: cleanup and fixes

On 2/24/2016 7:52 PM, Joshua Clayton wrote:
> Hello Troy,
> I'm replying here instead of to a particular commit because several of
> the commit messages seem inadequate.
> 
> The first line summaries all look good.
> 
> The descriptions should each also include the "user visible impact" of
> the patch and the justification for it (i.e. why you made the change).
> 
> For instance, patch 3 doesn't include either what will change
>  (nothing, I'm guessing?) or why we now pass in the structures
> instead of a queue_id. 

I can add to the commit message, that this is in preparation for
patch 4 which depends on it. Or I could squash patches 2/3/4
together, but I think it is easier to review smaller patches.


> 
> You've also got a few (e.g. patch 9, patch 14) where the substance
> of the patch is in the summary,
> 
> but missing from the message.
> 
> These kind of descriptions are very hard to review since the expression
> is split between the subject of the email and the body of the email, which
> are not close
> together in some email programs.
> 
> Better to reiterate or elaborate on the summary in the message.
> In patch 9, for instance, it would be more clear to say:
> 
> Move restart test to earlier in fec_txq() which saves one comparison. 


I can do this. And change patch 14 to read


Create subroutine reset_tx_queue to have one place
to release any queued tx skbs.

Any other commit messages you'd like to improve?


> P.S I'm a little confused, as I came looking for a v3 of the first 8 patches
> and found these instead. I'll try to give your first 8 a look when they show up.

The 1st 8 patches have already been applied. I added a patch to address your review there
at the end of the series. So, that patch will show up in my next set.


Thanks for the review

Troy