linux-kernel - Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

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:	Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:55:18 -0500
From:	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To:	nigel@...el.suspend2.net
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Plus:
>> - What if I'm planning to implement the power managemet, but not just right
>> now?
> 
> Why not right now?

LKML is much more receptive to drivers that follow
the "release early, release often" mantra.

Which means we really have to be more accomodating of
drivers that start out simple, and then gain all of the
non-essential capabilities gradually over time.

Simple observation here shows much more hostility :)
to drivers that are simply "presented" as a complete whole.
Often for good reason -- starting out with a framework
and then adding the rest bit by bit allows for much better
peer review and feedback.

And not all devices / situations need power management,
and lack of documentation on the hardware often prevents
us from implementing it at the outset.

Cheers
-
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/