netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6 addrconf: enable use of proc_dointvec_minmax in addrconf

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

Message-Id: <20160928.112153.1904927986517775222.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:21:53 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     zenczykowski@...il.com
Cc:     hannes@...essinduktion.org, ek@...gle.com, lorenzo@...gle.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6 addrconf: enable use of proc_dointvec_minmax in
 addrconf_sysctl

From: Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 22:23:10 +0900

> Anyway, enough, I give up, this isn't worth my time, and it's also not
> worth your time.
> I removed the dependency from the other patches and squashed them all into
> 1 to make reviewing easier.

Splitting things up is sometimes warranted, but you have to keep
together the things that strongly need each other.

And new facilities require examples of their use.  They really do.

I simply can't look at your patch and empty commit message and figure
out why you needed to do what you were doing.

Any developer should be able to look at a patch being proposed and be
able to understand it standing upon on it's own.  This means they
shouldn't have to know what happened in this discussion thread or that
one in order to evaluate and audit the patch properly.