linux-kernel - Re: Reiser4 Inclusion

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]

Date:	Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:12:21 +0200
From:	Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
CC:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@....de>,
	Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@...com.net>,
	Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>, arjan@...radead.org,
	caleb@...ebgray.com
Subject: Re: Reiser4 Inclusion

On 19.07.2006 21:04, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:32:48 +0200, Tilman Schmidt said:
>  
>>Well, that doesn't make sense. You can't have your cake and eat it
>>too. Either you have out-of-tree code or you haven't. Documents
>>like stable_api_nonsense.txt explicitly discourage out-of-tree code,
>>which is formally equivalent to saying that all kernel code should
>>be in-tree. Therefore an attitude which says "go on developing that
>>code out-of-tree, it's not ready for inclusion yet" is in direct
>>contradiction with the foundations of the no-stable-API policy.
> 
> Which part of "read Documentation/SubmittingPatches.txt and do what it says,
> or it doesn't get into the kernel" do you have trouble understanding?

None. Why do you think I'd have? And what relevance does this have to
the present discussion?

> It isn't a case of "out of tree code or you haven't". There's actually
> *three* major categories:
> 
> 1) Code that's already in-tree and maintained.  These guys don't need to
> worry about the API, as it will usually get handled free of charge.
> 
> 2) Code that's out-of-tree, but a potential (after possible rework) candidate
> for submission (for instance, the hi-res timers, CKRM, some drivers, etc).
> These guys need to forward-port their code for API changes as they work
> towards getting their code into the tree.
> 
> 3) Code that's out-of-tree, but is so far out in left field that there's
> no way it will ever go in.  For instance, that guy with the MVS JCL emulator
> better not be holding his breath waiting.  And quite frankly, nobody else
> really cares whether they forward port their code or not.

Correct. And you could easily subdivide it further. Your point being?

-- 
Tilman Schmidt                          E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (254 bytes)