netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/7] net: aquantia: implement WOL and EEE support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:42:47 +0300
From:   Igor Russkikh <igor.russkikh@...antia.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/7] net: aquantia: implement WOL and EEE
 support


>> Discussion outcome regarding driver version bumps was not finished
>> (here https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/954905/)
>> David, could you suggest the best way to proceed on this?
> 
> Having a channel for your driver that is outside of upstream and Linux
> distribution packages creates lots of problems.
> 
> When a user reports a problem with an upstream kernel, that verion
> dictates which driver source was being used.  There is not confusion
> or ambiguity.
> 
> For a distribution kernel, the distributor hashes out which driver
> they published in their kernel package when evaluating a bug reported
> to them.
> 
> None of these two entities is ready to evaluate and handle properly
> your custom scheme.
> 
> So generally I frown against separate distribution schemes.  It is
> in the final analysis an inferior experience for the user because
> you basically narrow all of their support channels for problems
> down to you and you alone.  The whole idea is to make it work the
> opposite way.
> 
> So in the upstream tree, really, the driver version is pretty useless.

Thank you for the comment, David.

I'll pass over these concerns to my company management.

BR, Igor