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: <b9ac3b26-fe48-46bc-8a10-89c682e71322@lunn.ch> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:11:39 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, Mubashir Adnan Qureshi <mubashirq@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Chao Wu <wwchao@...gle.com>, Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/5] net-smnp: reorganize SNMP fast path variables On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 08:55:44AM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 10/17/23 1:15 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > Perhaps add a big comment in the file itself, instead of repeating it > > on future commit changelogs ? > > I think a comment in the file would be better. I spent a fair amount of > time reviewing code double checking the impact of the moves; a comment > in that header file would have been helpful. We probably want both. A patch to a uapi file is something which as a reviewer immediately triggers questions about is it going to break backwards compatibility. Having it clearly mentioned in the commit message immediately answers those questions. I would say it is best practice to do so. Patching the header itself makes a lot of sense if we actually think it is useless being in uapi. Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists