netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] sfc: generate encap headers for TC offload

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: <d488a307-bbb1-78be-5831-658f3dd2ab8b@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 23:23:00 +0800
From: Hao Lan <lanhao@...wei.com>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>, <edward.cree@....com>,
	<linux-net-drivers@....com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] sfc: generate encap headers for TC offload



On 2023/6/6 23:03, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 04:52, Hao Lan wrote:
>> Why do you need to refactor the efx_gen_encap_header function in the same series?
>> I saw that patch 5 defined this function, and patch 6 refactored it,
>> instead of writing it all at once?
> Patch 5 introduces it only as a stub, because the calling code needs
>  it to exist.  Patch 6 then provides the implementation; this is not
>  a refactoring.
> They're in separate patches to split things up logically for review
>  and to assist future bisection.  Patch 5 is already big and complex
>  without this part.
> 
> (Also, please trim your quotes when replying to patches: you only
>  need to quote the part you're commenting on.)
> 
> -ed
> .
> 

This is a great idea for committing complex code,
thank you.

Reviewed-by: Hao Lan <lanhao@...wei.com>