netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/17] vsock: MSG

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]

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:01:11 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, 
	Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...rdevices.ru, 
	oxffffaa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/17] vsock: MSG_ZEROCOPY flag support

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 07:55:58AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>
>
>On 26.06.2023 19:15, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 11:49:22PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:

[...]

>>>
>>>           LET'S SPLIT PATCHSET TO MAKE REVIEW EASIER
>>>
>>> In v3 Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> asked to split this patchset
>>> for several parts, because it looks too big for review. I think in this
>>> version (v4) we can do it in the following way:
>>>
>>> [0001 - 0005] - this is preparation for virtio/vhost part.
>>> [0006 - 0009] - this is preparation for AF_VSOCK part.
>>> [0010 - 0013] - these patches allows to trigger logic from the previous
>>>                two parts.
>>> [0014 - rest] - updates for doc, tests, utils. This part doesn't touch
>>>                kernel code and looks not critical.
>>
>> Yeah, I like this split, but I'd include 14 in the (10, 13) group.
>>
>> I have reviewed most of them and I think we are well on our way :-)
>> I've already seen that Bobby suggested changes for v5, so I'll review
>> that version better.
>>
>> Great work so far!
>
>Hello Stefano!

Hi Arseniy :-)

>
>Thanks for review! I left some questions, but most of comments are clear
>for me. So I guess that idea of split is that I still keep all patches in
>a big single patchset, but preserve structure described above and we will
>do review process step by step according split?
>
>Or I should split this patchset for 3 separated sets? I guess this will be
>more complex to review...

If the next is still RFC, a single series is fine.

Thanks,
Stefano