linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)

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:	Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:01:37 +0300
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
	Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:00:54PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> As we all discussed at the Kernel Summit this past week, I said I would
> create a drivers/staging directory and start throwing lots of drivers
> that are not of "mergable" status into it.
>...
> The 3rd patch creates the drivers/staging/ directory and Kconfig entries
> and adds it to the build system.
> 
> The 4th patch is an example of a driver that would go into this
> directory, along with a driver_name.README file detailing what needs to
> be done to this driver for cleanup/fixing, and who to contact about it.
> It's also in such bad shape it doesn't even build against the kernel
> kernel :)
> 
> (I'll fix that up before submitting, all drivers should at least build
> properly...)
> 
> So, does this all look good to everyone?  Any questions/issues?
> 
> Oh, I guess I should add a MAINTAINER entry for this section of the
> kernel, so to paraphrase Linus, I now get to be known as the "Maintainer
> of Crap".

Sorry for being late in the discussion, I'm currently catching up with 
my email backlog.

What does that mean in practice for kernel development?

Will breaking crap be considered OK?

As an example, let's assume some crap drivers use the BKL in a way that 
it might require the BKL in some core part of the kernel. Will the 
person removing the BKL in the core part of the kernel be forced to fix 
the locking of all possibly affected crap drivers no matter how broken 
and undocumented it is, or can he simply ignore the crap and leave the 
fixing to the Maintainer of Crap?

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/