netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/7] qed*: RDMA and infrastructure for iWARP

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]

Date:   Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:54:49 +0000
From:   "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Kalderon, Michal" <Michal.Kalderon@...ium.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/7] qed*: RDMA and infrastructure for iWARP

> I'm still not happy at all.
> You failed the address the specific thing I asked to be fixed.

> In patch #4, the rename, you just say in your commit message
> that you are "renaming".

> But in the qedr/main.c part of the change, you are _REMOVING_
> the include.

> And I said that can't be right if all you are doing is renaming the
> files.

It's a redundant inclusion as qedr.h already includes the
interface file and gets included in turn by main.c.
We're not REALLY changing anything significant here; It's a very minor
cleanup as part of the patch.

> So either fix that part of the change to actually rename the include
> header, rather than removing the include, or explain _IN DETAIL_ in
> the commit log message why removing it is the right thing to do and
> especially _WHY_ it is appropriate for it to be done as part of the
> renaming patch.

I can't really say I understand who would benefit from adding 
"while at it remove redundant inclusion of header file"
to the commit log message [And even less from splitting this into its own patch].

But you're the chief; so we will.
 
> Can you understand how inconsistent it is to have a patch that says
> nothing more than "I'm renaming files" and yet have other stuff
> happening?