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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231012164033.1069fb4b@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:40:33 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Paul M Stillwell Jr <paul.m.stillwell.jr@...el.com> Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, <vaishnavi.tipireddy@...el.com>, <horms@...nel.org>, <leon@...nel.org>, Pucha Himasekhar Reddy <himasekharx.reddy.pucha@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/5] ice: configure FW logging On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:40:04 -0700 Paul M Stillwell Jr wrote: > OK, so what if we changed the code to create a new debugfs file entry > for each module and used the dentry for ther file to know what file is > being written to. Then we would only need to parse the log level. Would > that be acceptable? Yes, even better! > My confusion is around what makes the cmdline parsing harder to follow. > Obviously for me it's easy :) so I am trying to understand your point of > view. Dunno how to explain it other than "took me more than 10min to understand this code and I only had 10min" :) Reviewers have their own angle when evaluation code which doesn't always align with the author's..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists