linux-kernel - Re: Reiser4 Inclusion

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]

Message-Id: <200607191904.k6JJ4cf0002159@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:04:38 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@....de>,
	Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@...com.net>,
	Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>, arjan@...radead.org,
	caleb@...ebgray.com
Subject: Re: Reiser4 Inclusion

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:32:48 +0200, Tilman Schmidt said:

> Well, that doesn't make sense. You can't have your cake and eat it
> too. Either you have out-of-tree code or you haven't. Documents
> like stable_api_nonsense.txt explicitly discourage out-of-tree code,
> which is formally equivalent to saying that all kernel code should
> be in-tree. Therefore an attitude which says "go on developing that
> code out-of-tree, it's not ready for inclusion yet" is in direct
> contradiction with the foundations of the no-stable-API policy.

Which part of "read Documentation/SubmittingPatches.txt and do what it says,
or it doesn't get into the kernel" do you have trouble understanding?

It isn't a case of "out of tree code or you haven't". There's actually
*three* major categories:

1) Code that's already in-tree and maintained.  These guys don't need to
worry about the API, as it will usually get handled free of charge.

2) Code that's out-of-tree, but a potential (after possible rework) candidate
for submission (for instance, the hi-res timers, CKRM, some drivers, etc).
These guys need to forward-port their code for API changes as they work
towards getting their code into the tree.

3) Code that's out-of-tree, but is so far out in left field that there's
no way it will ever go in.  For instance, that guy with the MVS JCL emulator
better not be holding his breath waiting.  And quite frankly, nobody else
really cares whether they forward port their code or not.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped