linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] New firewire stack

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: <200705020956.59804.gene.heskett@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2007 09:56:59 -0400
From:	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	Olaf Hering <olh@...e.de>,
	Kristian Høgsberg <krh@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux1394-devel <linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [git pull] New firewire stack

On Wednesday 02 May 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>Olaf Hering wrote:
>> On Tue, May 01, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>>>   drivers/firewire/Kconfig          |   60 ++
>>
>> NACK.
>> Upgrade the current drivers/ieee1394/ with the new code,
>
>Last time I believe I was the only one who asked whether to put it into
>drivers/ieee1394 instead of another directory.  Of course I acknowledge
>that everytime a new review round is started, people do reconsider.
>Especially since we had a gap of a few months since the last LKML review.
>
>> and keep all existing module names.
>
>I'm impartial to that.  Using same names might ease the transition from
>the userspace side, as far as there is userland which relies on module
>names.
>
>A certain drawback of same names would be that geeks cannot install both
>stacks at once during the transition period.  Therefore, checking
>whether eventual problems are in fact regressions involves a module
>unload/ configure/ build/ install/ reload cycle, instead of just module
>unload/ reload.  This especially means we can only get help from testers
>who are able to build kernels.
>
>Other opinions?

I can and do build my own kernels so that's not a problem for me.  I also have 
a firewire movie camera that went through absolute hell the last time a 
firewire upgrade came by, and it was over 5 months before I had a working 
kino install again.  So I'd vote unconditionally to have 2 trees to select 
from at module load time until the shakeout has produced usable code in the 
2nd tree.

>From me, its a definite ACK.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
I owe, I owe,
It's off to work I go...
-
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/