| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1156281220.2476.65.camel@entropy> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:13:40 -0700 From: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: jmorris@...ei.org, johnpol@....mipt.ru, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drepper@...hat.com, akpm@...l.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, zach.brown@...cle.com, hch@...radead.org Subject: Re: [take12 0/3] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 13:36 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net> > Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:00:23 -0700 > > > I'm not the one proposing the new (potentially wrong) interface. The > > onus isn't on me. > > You can't demand a volunteer to do work, period. > > If it matters to you, you have the option of doing the work. > Otherwise you can't complain. So if a volunteer does bad work, I'm obligated to accept it just because I haven't done better? Alternately, if a volunteer does bad work, must it be merged into the kernel because there's isn't a better implementation? (I believe that was tried at least once with devfs.) And how is the quality of the work to be judged if the work isn't commented, documented and explained, especially the userland-visible parts that *cannot* *ever* *be* *changed* *or* *removed* once they're in a stable kernel release? -- Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists