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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:38:57 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] convert voyager over to the x86 quirks model * Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote: >> Regarding the new x86/Voyager submission: architecture or core >> kernel level code always has a higher barrier of entry than >> driver code for a number of good reasons: > > No, my point is that it is blatantly unfair to remove code, then > reset standards for inclusion far, far higher than at which it > left the tree. Oh, i'm all for including new code optimistically. (in fact i'm probably a bit over-inclusive) But i'm not at all for easily re-including known problematic code that has been removed. Including known problematic code under the same standard as removal i'd call 'very stupid'. IMO it is a fundamentally good engineering practice to learn from past experience and to learn from past mistakes and to require a higher standard if an old standard failed to produce an acceptable result first time around. _Especially_ so for such an extremely obsolete piece of hardware with a single upstream user+developer and a dismal upstream track record ... We really have to learn to say 'no' at a certain point ... I dont care about Voyager that much - but i do care about not doing stupid things intentionally in the code i (co-)maintain. Anyway, as i said it in the previous mail - in the end it's up to Linus and he can override our NAK if we are wrong about it. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists