linux-kernel - Re: Merging of completely unreviewed drivers

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: <20080221223303.GD1846@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:33:03 +0300
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Glenn Streiff <gstreiff@...Effect.com>,
	Faisal Latif <flatif@...Effect.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: Merging of completely unreviewed drivers

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:14:55PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Is it really intended to merge drivers without _any_ kind of review?
> 
> I'd really rather have the driver merged, and then *other* people can send 
> patches!
> 
> The thing is, that's what merging really means - people can work on it 
> sanely together. Before it's merged, it's a lot harder for people to work 
> on it unless they are really serious about that driver, so before 
> merging, the janitorial kind of things seldom happen.
> 
> So yes, I really do believe that we should merge drivers in particular a 
> lot more aggressively. I'd like to see *testing* feedback, in order to not 
> merge drivers that simply don't work well enough, but anything else? I 
> suspect other feedback is as likely to cause problems as it is to fix 
> things.
> 
> > This driver even lacks a basic "please fix the > 250 checkpatch errors" [1]
> > and similar low hanging fruits that could easily be spotted and then 
> > fixed by the submitter within a short amount of time.
> 
> Quite frankly, I've several times been *this* close (holds up fingers so 
> you can't even see between them) to just remove checkpatch entirely.

Agrh! What stopped you?!

> I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of checkpatch "fixes" are 
> anything but. That mainly concerns fixing overlong lines (where the 
> "fixed" version is usually worse than the original), but it's been true 
> for some other warnings too.

Speaking of driver, could authors please comment all those barrier()
calls and remove trailing "return;" at the end of void functions.
--
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/