netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/12] ice: split ice_virtchnl.c git-blame friendly way

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: <20250812135714.0e1a7ee0@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:57:14 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, Tony Nguyen
 <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Kuniyuki Iwashima
 <kuniyu@...gle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] ice: split ice_virtchnl.c git-blame friendly way

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:28:58 +0200 Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> Summary:
> Split ice_virtchnl.c into two more files (+headers), in a way
> that git-blame works better.
> Then move virtchnl files into a new subdir.
> No logic changes.
> 
> I have developed (or discovered ;)) how to split a file in a way that
> both old and new are nice in terms of git-blame
> There were no much disscussion on [RFC], so I would like to propose
> to go forward with this approach.
> 
> There is more commits needed to have it nice, so it forms a git-log vs
> git-blame tradeoff, but (after the brief moment that this is on the top)
> we spend orders of magnitude more time looking at the blame output (and
> commit messages linked from that) - so I find it much better to see
> actual logic changes instead of "move xx to yy" stuff (typical for
> "squashed/single-commit splits").
> 
> Cherry-picks/rebases work the same with this method as with simple
> "squashed/single-commit" approach (literally all commits squashed into
> one (to have better git-log, but shitty git-blame output).
> 
> Rationale for the split itself is, as usual, "file is big and we want to
> extend it".
> 
> This series is available on my github (just rebased from any
> earlier mentions):
> https://github.com/pkitszel/linux/tree/virtchnl-split-Aug12
> (the simple git-email view flattens this series, removing two
> merges from the view).
> 
> 
> [RFC]:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/5b94d14e-a0e7-47bd-82fc-c85171cbf26e@intel.com/T/#u
> 
> (I would really look at my fork via your preferred git interaction tool
> instead of looking at the patches below).

UI tools aside I wish you didn't cut off the diffstat from the cover
letter :/ It'd make it much easier to understand what you're splitting.

Greg, Sasha, I suspect stable will suffer the most from any file split /
movement. Do you have any recommendation on what should be allowed?