From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D88D5126C01; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:59:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725447565; cv=none; b=sJjTai0EiI+qzQXGnp/02r761LtOYojWlN4iEL8JpRX8e1aAG3d3fYKOxpskH30JxlHiWXXMk6HThpl6CLv5ntj15VBCJ1TB5wzy+nP0UB58nVIEosZmAlZOyzEaq9kI/GHhkd9+0j8vqBk29Lzs/Zd04IQ8A8VNx2h7kzI8MVY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725447565; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lTxFiJg70RiOGvJCTBWPygBgjRZ/GyIOa86pkD+fyKE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Sy8nraie65D1mwKMy94Dj6/ZM6+NoWR45neLrjSbqrKP0BWfYEV9WvCyYqaa3/VFEuyPfXHm9wfWNZ3wdsbMZzPOlTNG3mVq6qzpH2U6S+jI0fcXxY08TgrwAvSc5ASM4ARfoZ9Jo0cJV+iL2bXrKEEIHFGKuuhVg+fMSDVs5YE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=iQ5TR0kN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="iQ5TR0kN" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DEB1C4CEC2; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:59:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1725447565; bh=lTxFiJg70RiOGvJCTBWPygBgjRZ/GyIOa86pkD+fyKE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=iQ5TR0kNPf9bMpnKj8AexZb63BIaqsSFPLVlCMCtQTZS6r6QaDS4/asXkHOuB37pA a4cslMNnRuM4Py2TUyvM6iOLfhNpVdGor4t/S0egYXwMHma08DUkebb407gSLH+yTX ypW0erT4GAF7iZBZKGY1EDD1WeIu24Bj5uB1AY2xv0u81e+4vOQjYOadbjwpSltzNP uipKtiPYS+7P0Kj7CngrCgNHl7GaAUT8sUUfnFyAK5FesJJDg7kpYx0y4svb/kD7HR tmVcljYDDyCRwfGrOkVSemyT5cuThaLNKNO/+3QSpqX1MLHk8SM49KTC4Yl5jvEIF/ VjQF3heUU18Hw== Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:59:20 +0100 From: Simon Horman To: Breno Leitao Cc: kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, thepacketgeek@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davej@codemonkey.org.uk, thevlad@meta.com, max@kutsevol.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/9] net: netconsole: separate fragmented message handling in send_ext_msg Message-ID: <20240904105920.GQ4792@kernel.org> References: <20240903140757.2802765-1-leitao@debian.org> <20240903140757.2802765-4-leitao@debian.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240903140757.2802765-4-leitao@debian.org> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 07:07:46AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote: > Following the previous change, where the non-fragmented case was moved > to its own function, this update introduces a new function called > send_msg_fragmented to specifically manage scenarios where message > fragmentation is required. > > Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao Due to tooling the diff below seems to more verbose than the change warrants. Perhaps some diff flags would alleviate this, but anyone viewing the patch using git with default flags, would see what is below anyway. So I wonder if you could consider moving send_msg_fragmented() to above send_msg_no_fragmentation(). Locally this lead to an entirely more reasonable diff to review. I did review this change using that technique, and it looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman