linux-kernel - Re: Using best practices for big software change possibilities

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, 21 May 2017 12:12:39 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>,
        Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Using best practices for big software change possibilities

> Have you read my LWN article "Best practices for a big patch series"?
> 
> https://lwn.net/Articles/585782/

Yes.


>> This can also happen as a side effect if such a source code search pattern
>> will point hundreds of places out for further software development considerations.
>> How would you prefer to clarify the remaining update candidates there?
> 
> Maybe the article mentioned can provice further guidance?

Partly, yes.

I am trying to achieve some software improvements also for special change patterns.
This approach can trigger corresponding communication difficulties.
How do you think about to resolve them by additional means besides mail exchange?

Regards,
Markus