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

Message-ID: <CAHYXAnJZrxOPTttd4Z1v4f1ixwarxsJpz8YYZNDL_5r4_SkyeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 13:27:28 +0100
From:   Vasyl <gomonovych@...il.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        tariqt@...dia.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/mlx4: Use true,false for bool variable

Hi,

Ouuu it was fixed recently in net-next.
Sorry, I missed that.
Thanks for submitting policy clarification I am going to adapt to it.

Thanks

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 7:18 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 09:37:34PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 07:18 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:15:01AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > I prefer revisions to single patches (as opposed to large patch series)
> > > > in the same thread.
> > >
> > > It depends which side you are in that game. From the reviewer point of
> > > view, such submission breaks flow very badly. It unfolds the already
> > > reviewed thread, messes with the order and many more little annoying
> > > things.
> >
> > This is where I disagree with you.  I am a reviewer here.
>
> It is ok, different people have different views.
>
> >
> > Not having context to be able to inspect vN -> vN+1 is made
> > more difficult not having the original patch available and
> > having to search history for it.
>
> I'm following after specific subsystems and see all patches there,
> so for me and Jakub context already exists.
>
> Bottom line, it depends on the workflow.
>
> >
> > Almost no one adds URL links to older submissions below the ---.
>
> Too bad, maybe it is time to enforce it.
>
> >
> > Were that a standard mechanism below the --- line, then it would
> > be OK.
>
> So let's me summarize, we (RDMA and netdev subsystems) would like to ask
> do not submit new patch revisions as reply-to.
>
> Thanks



-- 
Доброї вам пори дня.