| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:44:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: avoiding rejects On Jul 10 2007 12:44, Andrew Morton wrote: > >There are many situations where patching the kernel involves adding a new >item to a list, such as: > >- adding a makefile line >- adding a new #include >- adding a new Kconfig entry >- adding a new PCI ID >- adding a record to feature-removal.txt >- adding a new sysctl table entry >- etc > >Of course, everyone just sticks the new entry at the end of the existing >entries. This strategy carefully maximises the opportunity for patch >rejects and leads to unhappiness. > >Most of these lists are unordered anyway, so inserting the new item at a >randomly-chosen position is a better approach than just appending it. As for Makefiles: Sort the list lexicographically. Let the submitter put it into the right spot. Example: net/netfilter/Makefile. There are lots of obj-$(CONFIG_NETFILTER_XT_MATCH_xyz) += xt_xyz.o for example, which can be sorted without disturbing required linking order or whatnot (for some directories this seems important). Benefit: Less rejects of course (not as much as a truly random insert, but still less than appending) _and_ a sorted list. Jan -- - 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