netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 15/16] net: dsa: felix: setup MMIO filtering rules for PTP when using tag

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]

Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:01:11 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@....com>,
        Hongbo Wang <hongbo.wang@....com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Po Liu <po.liu@....com>, Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@....com>,
        Maxim Kochetkov <fido_max@...ox.ru>,
        Eldar Gasanov <eldargasanov2@...il.com>,
        Andrey L <al@...omtech.com>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 15/16] net: dsa: felix: setup MMIO filtering
 rules for PTP when using tag_8021q

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:58:13PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > how bad is it to exceed the 15 patches per series limit? Do I need to
> > do something about it?
>
> It's not a hard rule IIUC, if you have 16, 17 patches as an atomic
> series which is hard to split, I'd think that's acceptable from time
> to time. Especially if the patches themselves are not huge.
> If you're already splitting a larger effort, keeping it < 15 is best.
> In general if you can split a smaller logically contained series out
> that's always preferred. The point is if the series is too large
> reviewers are likely to postpone reviewing it until they can allocate
> sufficiently large continuous block of time, which may be never.
> It's all about efficient code review.
>
> At least that's my recollection / understanding. There may be more
> reasons, we'd have to ask Dave.

To be fair this series is abusively large even for me to read, and _is_
easy to split. In v1 I had posted just the first half, but then figured
that reviewers might want to have the full picture of where I'm trying
to get at. But now that the picture has been given, I'm going back to
the split format. Thanks.