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  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:   Mon, 25 May 2020 13:09:48 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Mark Starovoytov <>
Cc:     "" <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Dmitry Bezrukov <>,
        Igor Russkikh <>
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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists