netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup patches

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: <20241007090828.05c3f0da@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:08:28 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet
 <corbet@....net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup
 patches

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 16:55:21 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > +Netdev discourages patches which perform simple clean-ups, which are not in
> > > +the context of other work. For example addressing ``checkpatch.pl``
> > > +warnings, or :ref:`local variable ordering<rcs>` issues. This is because it
> > > +is felt that the churn that such changes produce comes at a greater cost
> > > +than the value of such clean-ups.  
> > 
> > Should we add "conversions to managed APIs"? It's not a recent thing,
> > people do like to post patches doing bulk conversions which bring very
> > little benefit.  
> 
> Well yes, I agree that is well established, and a common target of patches.
> But isn't that covered by the previous section?
> 
>    "Using device-managed and cleanup.h constructs
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
>    "Netdev remains skeptical about promises of all “auto-cleanup” APIs,
>     including even devm_ helpers, historically. They are not the preferred
>     style of implementation, merely an acceptable one.
> 
>     ...
> 
>    https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html#using-device-managed-and-cleanup-h-constructs
> 
> We could merge or otherwise rearrange that section with the one proposed by
> this patch. But I didn't feel it was necessary last week.

Somewhat, we don't push back on correct use of device-managed APIs.
But converting ancient drivers to be device-managed just to save 
2 or 3 LoC is pointless churn. Which in my mind falls squarely
under the new section, the new section is intended for people sending
trivial patches.

> > On the opposite side we could mention that spelling fixes are okay.
> > Not sure if that would muddy the waters too much..  
> 
> I think we can and should. Perhaps another section simply stating
> that spelling (and grammar?) fixes are welcome.

Hm, dunno, for quotability I'd have a weak preference for a single
section describing what is and isn't acceptable as a standalone cleanup.