linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm for v4.15

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:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:57:36 -0500
From:   Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@...eaurora.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for v4.15

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is some code touched on sound/soc, but I think the sound tree
>> should have the same commits from the same base,so this may luck different
>> if you pulled it as I generated my pull request a couple of days ago. Otherwise
>> the highlights are below.
>
> I'm more curious about (and disgusted by) this one:
>
>   include/dt-bindings/msm/msm-bus-ids.h
>
> wtf? It's full of defines that aren't actually used anywhere.  Which
> is just as well, since it doesn't seem to be included from anything
> either.

Yeah, that shouldn't be there and should be removed.. I think it is my
bad.  The patch that introduced it didn't cherry pick cleanly when I
was pulling things into msm-next, so patch -p1 + git-add (which pulled
it in by mistake).  I'll send a patch to remove it.

BR,
-R

> There's something odd about drm people. You guys like these completely
> insane generated header files, and you seem to be populating the whole
> tree with this odd and diseased notion of "generated header files are
> cool".
>
> Is somebody getting paid by line of code?
>
> Yeah, yeah, we have those nasty dt-bindings heades from before too,
> but this one is one of the bigger ones, and it really comes with no
> explanation, and a commit message that doesn't really mention
> device-tree at all.
>
> Honestly, it seems like it got committed by mistake.
>
> I've pulled it, but Christ on a stick!
>
>               Linus