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

Date:	Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:17:20 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	gregkh@...e.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agruen@...e.de, jeffm@...e.de
Subject: Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:01:37 +0300
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:

> 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?
> 

<collapses in a hysterical seizure>

Every development tree right now will go out and breezily break random
other development trees with nary a care in the world.

What difference does one more tree make?
--
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/