linux-kernel - RE: x86 BIOS interface for partitioning and system serial number on SGI UV

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200808051724.m75HOKRM023618@terminus.zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:24:42 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
CC:	Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
	<mingo@...e.hu>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
Subject: RE: x86 BIOS interface for partitioning and system serial number
 on SGI UV

For code that is ready you should of course have a reasonable expectation that the code should go in in a timely manner.  Anything other than that would be blatantly unfair.  What I have reacted to is (a) the pushing of code which is obviously not even complete, and (b) demanding that *other* people prioritize you particular problems.  Both of these are blatantly abusive.

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone (pardon any lack of formatting)


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:56
To: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>; Russ Anderson <rja@....com>; mingo@...e.hu; tglx@...utronix.de; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
Subject: Re: x86 BIOS interface for partitioning and system serial number on SGI UV

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Mike Travis wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kyle,
>>
>> As I'm very new to this development arena, could you explain a bit more
>> on why this is considered "bad manners"?
>>
>> I'm not speaking of any particular change, but there are some
>> realities in
>> bringing a new product to market that depends heavily on new "features"
>> being accepted into a specific kernel release.  I certainly do not want
>> to "taint" any kernel code (and I'm always amazed at the dedication of
>> so many individuals to insure this doesn't happen), but the line between
>> acceptability (and not) seems to waver all over the place... ;-)
>>
> 
> It's because it's your responsibility to get the code in by whenever you
> need it to, but trying to push unfinished code with the motivation "we
> need it in by <release>" violates the development model *and* is just
> plain rude.
> 
> This comes down to the old saying "lack of planning on your part does
> not constitute an emergency on my part."
> 
> In other words, if you want to push code in by a specific release, the
> code needs to be *done* and properly submitted.  Submitting code that
> has a big "real code goes here" comment, is ridiculous.
> 
> Unfortunately we have seen a *lot* of that from several people at SGI
> over the last year.
> 
>     -hpa

Hi Peter,

Ok, thanks, I do see your point (very clearly), as I prepare yet another
"we really, really need this" patch... ;-)

[ok, it's only a led driver and the world won't stop if it doesn't show up
in the kernel... ;-)]

Cheers,
Mike

--
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/