linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] net: wireless: bcm43xx: big_buffer

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:	Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:22:43 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	stefano.brivio@...imi.it, Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
	matthias.kaehlcke@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mbuesch@...enet.de, linux@...mer.net, kjwinchester@...il.com,
	jonathan@...masters.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	bcm43xx-dev@...ts.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] net: wireless: bcm43xx: big_buffer_sem semaphore
	to mutex

* John W. Linville <linville@...driver.com> wrote:

> > It's not that simple.  For example, regression testing will be a 
> > major PITA if one needs to switch back and forth from the new driver 
> > to the old one in the process.
> 
> Not really true -- a single system can easily have firmware installed 
> for b43, b43legacy, and bcm43xx at the same time and switch back and 
> forth between them.

as long as the version 4 firmware blob is present in the system, will 
testers have a fully fluid test- and work-flow when migrating across 
from bcm43xx to b43, without any other changes to an existing Linux 
installation? (i.e. no udev tweaks, no forced upgrades of components, 
etc.)

Will it Just Work in bisection as well, when a tester's kernel 
flip/flops between bcm43xx and b43 - like it does for the other 3000+ 
drivers in the kernel?

Note that we are _NOT_ interested in "might" or "can" scenarios. We are 
interested in preserving the _existing_ bcm43xx installed base and how 
much of a seemless migration the b43 transition will be. _THAT_ is what 
the "no regressions" upstream rule is about, not the "ideal distro" 
scenario you outline above. It is YOUR total obligation as a kernel 
maintainer to ensure that you dont break old installations. How hard is 
that to understand? This is not rocket science.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/