netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v10] openvswitch: enable NSH support

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: <20170926135240.GA88616@cran64.bj.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2017 21:52:41 +0800
From:   "Yang, Yi" <yi.y.yang@...el.com>
To:     Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
        "e@...g.me" <e@...g.me>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10] openvswitch: enable NSH support

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:05:34PM +0800, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:47:16 +0800, Yi Yang wrote:
> > +	return ((ret != 0) ? false : true);

Jiri, I appriciate your review very carefully and professionally from my
heart for 10 versions, that is really very very big effort.

I carefully thought this comment:

"""
> +	return ((ret != 0) ? false : true);

Too little coffee or too late in the night, right? ;-)
"""

But I don't think this is a problematic line from my understanding,
because validate_nsh is declared to return bool. I had thought you were
saying "it was late, it was time for you to leave office, so no more
comments", this is my readout :-)

So the best comment you can give out here is one line you prefer :-)

I'm not a kernel developer full time, I'm adapting to several coding
style at the time in kernel, OVS and Opendaylight.

> 
> I'm not going to review this version but this caught my eye - I pointed
> out this silly construct in my review of v9. I can understand that
> working late in the night and rewriting the code back and forth, one
> could end up with such construct and overlook it at the final
> self-review before submission. Happens to everyone.
> 
> But leaving this after a review pointed it out means you're not paying
> enough attention to your work. Even the fact that you sent v10 so
> shortly after v9 means you did not spend the needed time on reflecting
> on the review and that you did not properly test the new version. And
> I told you exactly this before.
> 
> Honestly, I'm starting to be tired with reviewing your patch again and
> again and pointing out silly mistakes like this one and repeating basic
> things to you again and again.

I did test it in my sfc test environment, I don't see any warning, error
during build and runtime, it can work well.

Sorry if missing your comments, that is understanding issue in most
cases but not I don't take your comments seriously. You know English
isn't my native language, it is a big challenge for me to understand
your comments very well. Neverthless, code is our common language, I can
understand code better than your descriptive words :-)

> 
>  Jiri