linux-kernel - Re: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support

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:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:33:21 +1200
From:	Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, swetland@...gle.com,
	pavel@....cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk, san@...roid.com,
	rlove@...gle.com
Subject: Re: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support

Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 05:00:30AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
>> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:49:12 +0100
>>
>>> I can not keep up with the number of patches that need to be
>>> reviewed and ultimately merged.  I know this, and I freely admit it,
>>> and I have done so on many occasions.
>> Then split up the responsibilities to other people instead of being
>> the choke point.  Controlling everything isn't so important.
> 
> Don't you think that I've been trying to get other people to be more
> involved?
> 
> - I've been pushing people to send patches to the relevent mailing
>   list(s) and maintainer(s) for years.
> 
> - I've been pushing people to send their ARM patches to the ARM
>   mailing list rather than directly into the patch system for review
>   (it even has a comment telling people this) so that others can get
>   involved in reviewing them, and sharing that work load.
> 
> Do you think either have been anywhere near successful?
> 
> For the most part, the answer is no.  People concentrate on their own
> areas, and won't look at someone with a new class of platforms (eg,
> the STMP or W90x900 stuff).
> 
> I'd absolutely love it if the review load could be shared, but for the
> most part it just doesn't happen.  Everyone's far too busy with their
> own stuff to help out (and that's a reason that they'll give if tackled
> head on about it.)

Question on this: I occasionally review patches where I have the
knowledge or interest. Most of the time however, I do not have the
hardware needed to actually test the patches, and so my reviews are
simply coding style, etc. I don't want to add my acked-by to something I
can't test, or am not at reasonably confident is okay (ie haven't
tested, but know the hardware well enough to be satisfied the patch is
okay by reading it).

The problem I see for developers I do reviews for, is that they post a
patch, I do a code review, the post an update looking for an acked-by,
and the best I can say is "looks okay to me, but get someone else to ack
it". Whats the best approach here? Should I just add my Reviewed-by tag,
or should can/should I ack patches where I think the code is okay, but
can't test.

~Ryan

-- 
Bluewater Systems Ltd - ARM Technology Solution Centre

       Ryan Mallon                              Unit 5, Amuri Park
       Phone: +64 3 3779127                     404 Barbadoes St
       Fax:   +64 3 3779135                     PO Box 13 889
       Email: ryan@...ewatersys.com             Christchurch, 8013
       Web:   http://www.bluewatersys.com       New Zealand
       Freecall Australia  1800 148 751         USA 1800 261 2934
--
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/