netdev - Re: [PATCH for-next 00/14][PULL request] Mellanox mlx5 core driver updates 2016-10-25

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, 28 Oct 2016 13:53:09 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     saeedm@...lanox.com
Cc:     dledford@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
        leonro@...lanox.com, talal@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 00/14][PULL request] Mellanox mlx5 core driver
 updates 2016-10-25

I really disalike pull requests of this form.

You add lots of datastructures and helper functions but no actual
users of these facilities to the driver.

Do this instead:

	1) Add TSAR infrastructure
	2) Add use of TSAR facilities to the driver

That's one pull request.

I don't care if this is hard, or if there are entanglements with
Infiniband or whatever, you must submit changes in this manner.

I will not accept additions to a driver that don't even get really
used.