netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] net: usb: asix88179

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180402200650.72309de6@why.wild-wind.fr.eu.org>
Date:   Mon, 2 Apr 2018 20:06:50 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Alexander Kurz <akurz@...la.de>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <afd@...com>,
        <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <freddy@...x.com.tw>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] net: usb: asix88179_178a: de-duplicate code

[dropping Freddy as I'm getting bounces from asix.com.tw]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 15:21:08 +0000 Alexander Kurz <akurz@...la.de> wrote:

Alexander,

> Hi Marc, David,
> with the v2 patch ("net: usb: asix88179_178a: de-duplicate code")
> I made an embarrasly stupid mistake of removing the wrong function.
> The v2 patch accidentially changed ax88179_link_reset() instead of 
> ax88179_reset(). Hunk 6 of v2 ("net: usb: asix88179_178a: de-duplicate 
> code") is just utterly wrong.

OK, that explains what I saw here.

> ax88179_bind() and ax88179_reset() were the correct targets to be 
> de-duplicated, as done in the v3 patch.
> 
> Sorry for this, Alexander

We all make mistakes, so let's try to learn from them.

You can improve your process by testing what you're about to send (a
very basic requirement), and documenting the changes you make on each
version you send (a cover letter is a good place to put it).

Answering reviewer questions helps building trust between the
contributor and the maintainer on the receiving end of the patch, and
you probably want to answer them before sending a new version so that a
proper discussion can take place, specially if the reviewer doesn't
quite see what you're aiming for.

I'll comment on the patch separately.

Hope this helps,

	M.
-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.