netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 02/14] devlink: split out core 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]

Message-ID: <a02d12e8-b67d-53f6-8a48-8156066946b2@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 15:55:45 -0800
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/14] devlink: split out core code



On 1/4/2023 6:10 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:50:32 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Rename devlink_netdevice_event() to make it clear that it only touches
>>> ports (that's the only change which isn't a pure code move).  
>>
>> Did you do any other changes on the move? 
> 
> Please read the paragraph you're quoting again.
> I specifically addressed this question.
> 
>> I believe that for patches like this that move a lot of code it is
>> beneficial to move the code "as is". The changes could be done in a
>> separate patches, for the ease of review purposes.
> 
> I obviously know that. That's why patch 1 and patch 2 are separate.
> The line between what warrants a separate patch and what doesn't
> is somewhat subjective.
> 
>> Could you please?
> 
> Sure.. :/

I am fine with it as-is, but it would be easier to review without the
change.

I typically review such changes using git diff's --color-moved-lines
option to make it easier to see what changed vs not and ensure it lines
up with what was described.

Thanks,
Jake