linux-kernel - Re: other potential candidates for removal?

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: <9a8748490707180700t60bdbe88tb5190ade4e4f0c35@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:00:28 +0200
From:	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: other potential candidates for removal?

On 18/07/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
>
>    a while back, i threw together this wiki page:
>
> http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Stuff_to_be_removed
>
> feel free to comment.
>
Some comments on that list :

} PCMCIA IOCTL support
}
} Currently listed in the removal file as scheduled for deletion back
in November of 2005, but
} there's some debate as to whether it's really ready to go.

If you remove that don't you run the risk of breaking existing
userspace (something which we don't do lightly) ?  Same goes for other
IOCTL's on the list as well as the ulog support.

Also, some items seem to have made the list since they depend on
BROKEN_ON_SMP or have no active maintainer.  As for depending on
BROKEN_ON_SMP, as long as the drivers work fine on UP they may have
users, so removing them would constitute regressions for those users -
especially if there's no replacement driver. Wouldn't it be better to
try and get those BROKEN_ON_SMP drivers to become SMP safe instead of
just removing them (or just leave them as-is if they work for some
people on UP)?
As for the lack of an active maintainer being a partial reason for
removal. I don't agree with that. As long as the code works and gets
fixed up to continue working when other parts of the kernel evolve,
then I see no reason to remove the code just because noone is actively
maintaining it. Sometimes unmaintained code even grow new maintainers
after a while.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
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/