linux-kernel - RE: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support

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:	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:40:06 -0400
From:	"H Hartley Sweeten" <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>
To:	"Ryan Mallon" <ryan@...ewatersys.com>,
	"Nicolas Pitre" <nico@....org>
Cc:	"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>,
	"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <swetland@...gle.com>,
	<pavel@....cz>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>, <san@...roid.com>,
	<rlove@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support

On Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:23 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >
> > I think that you, as the ARM maintainer, should continue gathering all 
> > the ARM subarchitectures into a coherent ARM tree and arbitrate 
> > conflicts when they occur.  You should especially keep a tight control 
> > on the very core ARM code.  But everything under arch/arm/mach-* you 
> > should let people maintaining those have control of that themselves and 
> > free yourself from that responsibility as much as possible.  The current 
> > directory structure is quite indicative of where the boundaries are 
> > already.  This way, if I make a mess of arch/arm/mach-orion5x/* then you 
> > just need to pass the blame straight to me.
> > 
> 
> That works okay for the more popular sub-architectures like pxa, etc,
> where there are a lot of people to review code and sort out issues
> between themselves. However, for the architecture I do most of my work
> on, ep93xx, there are basically two of us, Hartley and myself, doing
> active work.
> 
> It seems a bit dodgy if all the patches to ep93xx are written by one of
> us and acked by the other with no input from anybody else. It would be
> very easy for the ep93xx code to become and complete mess, and lack any
> coherency with the other sub-archs. I prefer having Russell, or somebody
> else, at least have a glance at the patches before they get applied.

I agree with Ryan.

I review everything Ryan (or others) submit for ep93xx and add my Sign-off-by
or Tested-by as appropriate, I don't think I have every actually added an
Acked-by to any patch (I could be wrong).  Ryan does similar for my patches.

Before anything actually gets applied I am much more comfortable with an ok
from Russell and then going through his patch system.  The third party makes
sure that we don't do anything silly (or stupid).

Regards,
Hartley
--
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/