netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] bpf: fix formatting, typos, reflow comments in syscall.c, verifier.c

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

Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:52:37 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] bpf: fix formatting, typos, reflow comments
 in syscall.c, verifier.c

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:28 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>
> On 03/01/2019 01:27 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 02/28/2019 11:40 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:59 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Fix few formatting errors. Fix few typos and reflow long descriptive
> >>> comments for more even text fill.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> >>
> >> I think we should not change the code for formatting, as these changes make
> >> git-blame more difficult. How about we only make changes to comments?
> >
> > Kind of true, though git blame is imho not too useful (unless I'm missing
> > some git magic :)); git log -p has much more historical context to search
> > through. I think these cleanups below are okay, though my worry is that
> > for someone doing backports changes that are scattered like this mainly
> > cause conflicts which then gets painful to resolve. I think we could make
> > it work if they are split and more isolated, e.g. syscall ones could be
> > one commit, another one only touching the big contiguous verifier comment,
> > and so on.
>
> (Ideally also separate from the doc-only patches which is the rest of your
>  series.)

Yep, sure, I'll split this into two patchsets and this patch into
multiple patches (as part of second patchset).