linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] lguest: documentation pt I: Preparation

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: <20070723171238.1a832b31.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:12:38 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] lguest: documentation pt I: Preparation

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:17:58 +1000
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:

> The netfilter code had very good documentation: the Netfilter Hacking
> HOWTO.  Noone ever read it.
> 
> So this time I'm trying something different, using a bit of
> Knuthiness.  Start with drivers/lguest/README.

um.

I'm OK with merging patches and given lguest's newness, the timestamp on
these patches, the fact that they don't change code generation (right?) and
my reluctance to carry large do-nothing patches for two months, I'd be OK
with squeaking them into 2.6.23.

But I worry that you're proposing adding what appears to be new
Documentation-related machinery and infrastructure when there's already
increased activity in that area from other people and we might all be
headed in different directions and stuff.

So first I think we'd best form a kernel kommittee and mull this for a
while (preferably months) to screw you around as much as poss, OK?  ;)

Items for consideration would be:

- if this stuff is good, shouldn't other code be using it?  If so, is
  this new infrastructure in the correct place?

- if, otoh, this infrastructure is _not_ suitable for other code, well,
  what was wrong with it?

- if the requirement is good, perhaps alternative implementations should
  be explored (dunno what).

IOW, I'd be interested in hearing Rob and Randy's opinions on it all,
please.
-
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/