linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

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: <20071114093820.ff3ad8f9.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:38:20 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, protasnb@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-input@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net> wrote:
> 
> > > (and this is in no way directed at the networking folks - it holds 
> > > for all of us. I have one main complaint about networking: the 
> > > separate netdev list is a bad idea - networking regressions should 
> > > be discussed and fixed on lkml, like most other subsystems are. Any 
> > > artificial split of the lk discussion space is bad.)
> > 
> > but here I disagree.  LKML is already too busy and noisy. Major 
> > subsystems need their own discussion areas.
> 
> That's a stupid argument. We lose much more by forced isolation of 
> discussion than what we win by having less traffic! It's _MUCH_ easier 
> to narrow down information (by filter by threads, by topics, by people, 
> etc.) than it is to gobble information together from various fractured 
> sources. We learned it _again and again_ that isolation of kernel 
> discussions causes bad things.
> 
> In fact this thread is the very example: David points out that on netdev 
> some of those bugs were already discussed and resolved. Had it been all 
> on lkml we'd all be aware of it.

or had <someone> been on netdev.

> this is a single kernel project that is released together as one 
> codebase, so a central place of discussion is obvious and common-sense.

Central doesn't have to mean one-and-only-one-list-for-everything.

> so please stop this "too busy and too noisy" nonsense already. It was 
> nonsense 10 years ago and it's nonsense today. In 10 years the kernel 
> grew from a 1 million lines codebase to an 8 million lines codebase, so 
> what? Deal with it and be intelligent about filtering your information 
> influx instead of imposing a hard pre-filtering criteria that restricts 
> intelligent processing of information.

So you have a preferred method of handling email.  Please don't
force it on the rest of us.

I'll plan to use lkml-list-only when you have convinced DaveM to drop
all of the other mailing lists at vger.kernel.org.  Yeah, sure.

---
~Randy
-
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/