linux-kernel - Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:19:23 -0700
From:   Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@...nta.net>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
        Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics?

On 12/12/16 3:11 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> It is really needed to clarify the corresponding software development
>>> history any further?
>>
>> It is relevant because you are submitting a patch and your changelog
>> implies that it makes the code follow some code structure rule that
>> needs to be applied to the kernel.
> 
> I am proposing a change which was described also around various other
> functions in some software already.

What is this supposed to mean?

>> As the above is a recurring pattern in kernel code, it is legitimate
>> to ask if such a rule exist, and has been enforced before, or you are
>> making it up.
> 
> I got the impression that special software development habits can also
> evolve over time.
> 
>> As a proposer of a new pattern, what is the evidence you can bring to
>> the discussion that supports that your solution is better?
> 
> I am trying to increase the software development attention on error
> detection and corresponding exception handling at various places.

Are you doing this submitting random patches to the kernel sources?

>> What is the metric you are using to define "better"?
> 
> Do response times for system failures matter here?

No. And you are again answering a question with a question.

Cheers,
Daniele