netdev - Re: [patch net] devlink: convert occ_get op to separate registration

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:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:46:00 +0200
From:   "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "jiri@...lanox.com" <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "idosch@...lanox.com" <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net] devlink: convert occ_get op to separate registration

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >Bots are starting to overwhelm actual content from human beings
> >on this list, and I want to put my foot on the brake right now
> >before it gets even more out of control.
> 
> I think we're just hitting the limitations of using a mailing list. Bots
> aren't around to spam everyone for fun, right?
> 
> 0day bot is spammy because patches fail to compile, syzbot is spammy
> because we have tons of bugs users can hit and the stable bot is
> spammy because we miss lots of commits that should be in stable.
> 
> As the kernel grows, not only the codebase is expanding but also the
> tooling around it. While spammy, bots provide valuable input that in the
> past would take blood, sweat and tears to acquire. We just need a better
> way to consume it rather than blocking off these inputs.

As one of the primary abusers of the "I send too much email" flood of
mess, I'm going to start cutting down on what type of message I respond
to a public vger list from now on.  I'll write more on the stable@ list
about this, but for your individual patches like this, how about just
responding to the developers themselves and not a public list?  I do
that when I commit a patch to my tree, stripping out lists, as it's not
a useful message for anyone other than the person who wrote the patch
and the reviewers.

thanks,

greg k-h