linux-kernel - Re: [git patches] net driver fixes

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: <20080915232522.GD15421@havoc.gtf.org>
Date:	Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:25:22 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 03:41:05PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:38:07 -0400
> 
> > He continues to take non-regression fixes and minor cosmetic commits
> > from other trees.
> 
> I could complain about that, but he's pushed back hard enough
> on me that I don't consider that very fruitful.
> 
> Feel free if you want.

My impression was that Linus was in Wrath of God(tm) mode <grin> and he
was reacting strongly for effect not being specific.

But I would rather push my fixes, than complain about others' changes :)


> > Late -rc does not mean "no bug fixes at all except regressions" if you
> > look at the commits going into the kernel tree.
> 
> Actually, since you brought this up, he's allowing this largely in
> obscure subsystems and/or code he happens to be personally working on
> fixes for.

Well, obscure subsystems like PCI

      PCI: Fix printk warnings in setup-bus.c
      PCI: Fix printk warnings in probe.c

or libata

      sata_inic162x: enable LED blinking
      ata: duplicate variable sparse warning

or ia64 (this is not a regression, but a regular bug)

	ia64: fix panic during `modprobe -r xpc'

or bugs that have existed for a long time,

	bfs: fix Lockdep warning

As I understand and observe, Linus never ever wants to create
hard-and-fast rules, in this or anything, but set a general guideline
of not putting in changes (fixes or whatever) late in the game that
have a ghost of a chance of creating further problems.  That is the
underlying issue... don't create new headaches, _especially_ for large
userbases ;-)

So, I -totally- understand your reaction, but I think this is erring
too far on the side of caution.  Oh well...

	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/