netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/4] selftest: can: Start importing selftests from can-tests

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: <689f5812-7836-4af7-a000-3f514565ec44@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:19:58 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Felix Maurer <fmaurer@...hat.com>
Cc: socketcan@...tkopp.net, mkl@...gutronix.de, shuah@...nel.org,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 dcaratti@...hat.com, fstornio@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] selftest: can: Start importing selftests from
 can-tests

On 24/04/2025 at 23:01, Felix Maurer wrote:
> On 24.04.25 09:45, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> [...]
>>> Felix Maurer (4):
>>>   selftests: can: Import tst-filter from can-tests
>>>   selftests: can: use kselftest harness in test_raw_filter
>>>   selftests: can: Use fixtures in test_raw_filter
>>>   selftests: can: Document test_raw_filter test cases
>>
>> You are doing a lot of change to the original to the point that this
>> is more a full rewrite. I have no intent of reviewing the first patch
>> which is just the copy paste from the original. If no one else has a
>> strong opinion on this, I would rather prefer if you just squash
>> everything and send a single patch with the final result. This will
>> also save you some effort when migrating the other tests.
>>
>> I have a few comments on the individual patches, but overall very
>> good. Thanks a lot!
> 
> Thank you very much for your feedback! I'll silently include most of it
> and will only reply where I think discussions are necessary.
> 
> For squashing / keeping this as individual patches: I usually like to
> have some kind of history available, but here it might not provide a lot
> of value. I would be fine with squashing as well. If there are any
> stronger opinions on this, keep them coming.

I would normally agree, but here, I did a git diff between the first patch and
the final result, and there is just fives lines of code which you did not touch.

If I want to review each patch (which I normally always do), this becomes double
work. Splitting a series in small patches should simplify the review process,
unfortunately, here, it had the opposite effect for me.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol