netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net/mlx4: Use true,false for bool variable

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]

Message-ID: <1113d2d634d46adb9384e09c3f70cb8376a815c4.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:15:01 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vasyl Gomonovych <gomonovych@...il.com>, tariqt@...dia.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/mlx4: Use true,false for bool variable

On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 11:03 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:16:08 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:30:08AM +0100, Vasyl Gomonovych wrote:
> > > It is fix for semantic patch warning available in
> > > scripts/coccinelle/misc/boolinit.cocci
> > > Fix en_rx.c:687:1-17: WARNING: Assignment of 0/1 to bool variable
> > > Fix main.c:4465:5-13: WARNING: Comparison of 0/1 to bool variable
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Vasyl Gomonovych <gomonovych@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  - Add coccicheck script name
> > >  - Simplify if condition
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_rx.c | 2 +-
> > >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c  | 2 +-
> > >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)  
> > 
> > Please refrain from sending new version of patches as reply-to to
> > previous variants. It makes to appear previous patches out-of-order
> > while viewing in threaded mode.
> 
> Yes, please! I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way! :)

I'm the other way.

I prefer revisions to single patches (as opposed to large patch series)
in the same thread.

There is no other easy way for changes to a patch to be tracked AFAIK.

Most email clients use both In-Reply-To: and References: headers as
the mechanism to thread replies.

Keeping the latest messages at the bottom of a thread works well
to see revision sequences.