netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: stmmac: Make stmmac_dvr

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: <20230213162333.iqjlwa2ladkxfooy@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:23:33 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: stmmac: Make stmmac_dvr_remove() return void

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 12:24:30PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > The function returns zero unconditionally. Change it to return void instead
> > which simplifies some callers as error handing becomes unnecessary.
> > 
> > This also makes it more obvious that most platform remove callbacks always
> > return zero.
> 
> Code in both patches looks OK.

Is this an Ack?

> Please, specify, which tree this patch should be in (net or net-next).
> This is rather a code improvement than a fix, so net-next would be appropriate.

net-next sounds fine. Sorry, I forgot about this requirement for net
patches.

> Also, multiple patches usually require a cover letter. The code changes are 
> trivial, so maybe the best solution would be to just to squash those patches 
> together.

My conclusion was a bit different: The code changes are trivial, so they
don't require a cover letter :-)

I don't care much about squashing the two patches together. I slightly
prefer to keep the changes as two changes as the changes are orthogonal
and one patch per thing is the usual action.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)