linux-kernel - Re: pull request: wireless-2.6 2008-08-26

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: <1ba2fa240808270526g163f8c0an3c5d220cce69466c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:26:17 +0300
From:	"Tomas Winkler" <tomasw@...il.com>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	johannes@...solutions.net, holtmann@...ux.intel.com,
	linville@...driver.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull request: wireless-2.6 2008-08-26

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:45 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: "Tomas Winkler" <tomasw@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:34:28 +0300
>
>> Unfortunately fixing bugs on stable branch take precedence  of
>> adjusting to new API on development branch that someone decided to do.
>>  I wanted to work directly on wireless testing but it was broken over
>> an over and I have only limited resources more in testing then in
>> development I just had to branch out to be ready with the driver when
>> HW is out. People just check the immediate impact of they fix the
>> don't test for collateral damage and this is understandable an
>> individual developer doesn't have lab with IBSS, BSS, AP, etc setups.
>
> But think about this from the other perspective.
>
> When you queue up tons of things, especially in infrastructure level
> code such as mac80211, and on top of it you do your work on the stable
> branch and do not do you work against the development tree, guess what
> happens?

> You show up with accumulated piles of non-trivial patches for people
> to review.  And then you'll get upset when they suggest that things be
> implemented differently.

I never worked that way I've published immediately what I had. I don't
know where  did you get this impression
 If I didn't publish something it's just too reasons.
The code was made dirty and I didn't like design myself (for example
our 11h implementation), even though it's publicly available.
or just simply didn't have time because I have to satisfy first thous
who pays my check ( everybody to feed their children after all:) )
(e.g. rfkill fixes)
Almost every driver has it's own development branch, we didn't do
something different here, this is just classical divide and conquer
strategy.

> It's all because of the gap in time.
>
> And during this time, if you had submitted earlier, you would end up
> doing smaller and mode gradual modifications to your design.  And
> you'd take care of them before they effect subsequent pieces of work
> you want to do which depend upon the earlier bits.
>
> The longer you queue stuff up, the more painful having to change stuff
> at the beginning of that queue becomes.  It can invalidate everything
> else you worked on.
>
> The only sane way to operate is to post your work early and often, or
> else you'll live in a world of hurt, and it will be nobody's fault but
> your own.

This is all understood and this would be indeed the ideal case.
Tomas
--
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/