netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] net: dsa: microchip: delete dead code

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 06:24:31 +0200
From:   Helmut Grohne <helmut.grohne@...enta.de>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: dsa: microchip: delete dead code

Hi Andrew,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 04:39:53PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> This patch probably is correct. But it is not obviously correct,
> because there are so many changes at once. Please could you break it
> up.

>From my pov, it is less a question of whether it is correct, but whether
it goes into the desired direction. There are a few comments in the
driver that point to pending work. It might as well be that I'm removing
the infrastructure that other patches are meant to build upon.

I guess only the microchip people can answer this and in the event of
silence, the best course of action likely is to proceed. Maybe give it
some time? It's summer holdiday time in northern hemisphere.

> So at minimum, break it up into 3 patches, one per structure.  I would
> even go further.
> 
> Small patches are easier to review. And if something does break, a git
> bisect gives you more information about what change broke it.

Yes, sure. But this was deliberately RFC and I deliberately merged all
the removals to give you a quick idea of the dead code size. I didn't
expect this to be applied as is but rather generate a reply regarding
the purpose of the code that I propose to remove (in smaller steps).

Helmut