linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] convert voyager over to the x86 quirks model

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: <20090420003857.GA10438@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:38:57 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] convert voyager over to the x86 quirks model

* Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:

>> Regarding the new x86/Voyager submission: architecture or core 
>> kernel level code always has a higher barrier of entry than 
>> driver code for a number of good reasons:
>
> No, my point is that it is blatantly unfair to remove code, then 
> reset standards for inclusion far, far higher than at which it 
> left the tree.

Oh, i'm all for including new code optimistically. (in fact i'm 
probably a bit over-inclusive)

But i'm not at all for easily re-including known problematic code 
that has been removed. Including known problematic code under the 
same standard as removal i'd call 'very stupid'.

IMO it is a fundamentally good engineering practice to learn from 
past experience and to learn from past mistakes and to require a 
higher standard if an old standard failed to produce an acceptable 
result first time around.

_Especially_ so for such an extremely obsolete piece of hardware 
with a single upstream user+developer and a dismal upstream track 
record ... We really have to learn to say 'no' at a certain point
...

I dont care about Voyager that much - but i do care about not doing 
stupid things intentionally in the code i (co-)maintain.

Anyway, as i said it in the previous mail - in the end it's up to 
Linus and he can override our NAK if we are wrong about it.

	Ingo
--
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/