netdev - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 01/12] net: atlantic: changes for multi-TC 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200525130948.157ca135@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 13:09:48 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Starovoytov <mstarovoitov@...vell.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dmitry Bezrukov <dbezrukov@...vell.com>,
        Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 01/12] net: atlantic: changes for
 multi-TC support

On Fri, 22 May 2020 19:47:37 +0000 Mark Starovoytov wrote:
> > > * use AQ_HW_*_TC instead of hardcoded magic numbers;
> > > * actually use the 'ret' value in aq_mdo_add_secy();  
> > 
> > Whenever you do an enumeration like this - it's a strong indication that those
> > should all be separate patches. Please keep that in mind going forward.  
> 
> Understood, but I've also seen a recommendation that a single
> patchset shouldn't have more than 15 patches (if my memory doesn't
> fail me). And unfortunately it would have been impossible to meet the
> 15 patches limit, if all these small changes were in separate
> patches. What's the best/recommended approach in this case?

Non-functional changes like that will usually get reviewed and merged
within 24 hours, so if series gets longer than 15 patches I'd personally
separate low-risk / refactoring changes into a series of their own. 
And then post the rest of the code once they get merged.