From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755666Ab1KUKUi (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:20:38 -0500 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([143.182.124.22]:49518 "EHLO azsmga101.ch.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755421Ab1KUKUf convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:20:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20111119143337.cd84cfc59a78e0378dbd4089@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20111119143337.cd84cfc59a78e0378dbd4089@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:20:33 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.2 1/7] crypto: GnuPG based MPI lib - source files (part 1) From: "Kasatkin, Dmitry" To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dhowells@redhat.com, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au, James Morris Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:51:30 +0300 Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: >> >> Adds the multi-precision-integer maths library which was originally taken >> from GnuPG and ported to the kernel by (among others) David Howells. >> This version is taken from Fedora kernel 2.6.32-71.14.1.el6. >> The difference is that checkpatch reported errors and warnings have been fixed. >> >> This library is used to implemenet RSA digital signature verification >> used in IMA/EVM integrity protection subsystem. >> >> Due to patch size limitation, the patch is divided into 4 parts. > > I just noticed that this has been added to the "next" branch of the > security tree (and thus into the next release of linux-next).  I think > that these patches should be rearranged as in their current form, they > break bisection (since the files in this patch reference include files in > a latter patch).   We generally prefer large patches to be broken up into > logical sub patches rather than just along file boundaries. > > In this case, even though it was broken up for review, it could have been > committed as one large commit (assuming that there is no sensible way to > break it up). Hi, It can be easily split into 2 commits and one of them would not comply with mailing list limits. James, should I do anything about it? Thanks, - Dmitry > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au > http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ >