linux-kernel - Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device

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]

Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:30:12 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	pcihpd-discuss@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> 
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your 
>>> code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it 
>>> every minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a 
>>> largely outside party in this matter, supposed to notice that 3 
>>> maintainers and 3 mailing lists in the Cc: were somehow not enough 
>>> and that i was supposed to grow the already sizable Cc: list even 
>>> more?
>> Because, regardless of the situation, it's both common courtesy and 
>> wise practice to CC relevant driver maintainers, when you touch a 
>> driver.
>>
>> And it's just common sense: Greg simply does not know the intimate 
>> details of every PCI driver.  Nor do I.  Nor you.
>>
>> In the case of lpfc here, we have an active driver maintainer, and an 
>> up-to-date MAINTAINERS entry.  Even if you are too slack to read 
>> MAINTAINERS, 'git log' would have given you the same info.
>>
>> Don't pretend there is some benefit here to ignoring the people that 
>> best know the driver.  I don't buy that; it simply makes no 
>> engineering sense whatsoever.
> 
> what you _STILL_ do not realize is the following: you still attribute 
> the lack of Cc:s to some intention of mine. No, it was not my intention. 

I was never speaking to intent.

I was noting that, having been in the kernel community for years, both 
of you guys should know that you should always CC a driver author, when 
touching their driver.

Even after this thread, I have not even heard a "yes, I agree, I should 
have CC'd the driver author since they know the most about the driver" 
from either of you, which is quite disappointing.

Instead, I get this long thread in response...


>   is just super fragile and does not serve users at all. Even Greg and i 
>   got it wrong accidentally. If _we_ get it wrong, who will get it 

Sure.  But... do you agree the CC list should have included the driver 
author?  Do you agree that a mistake was made in this case?

	Jeff


--
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/