linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] linux-next: 20090929

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, 8 Oct 2009 16:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
cc:	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	sfr@...b.auug.org.au, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arve Hjonnevag <arve@...roid.com>, San Mehat <san@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux-next: 20090929 - android driver build breaks

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Greg KH wrote:

> > What are you specifically referring to?  Kamalesh provided a patch[*] that 
> > fixes this particular compile error, which you said you were queueing.
> 
> Hm, I did say I was queueing it, but I still can't figure out if this is
> needed for the 2.6.32 tree.  Is it?
> 

Yes, 28b83c5 was merged during the merge window for 2.6.32 so this needs 
to be pushed for the staging tree if it's not ripped out.

> > If it's a criticism of the staleness of the Android code within the 
> > staging tree or no recent activity, then we should probably loop in some 
> > Android developers to find our about their plans.  I've added them to the 
> > cc.
> 
> They know all about this and agreed that the code should be dropped for
> 2.6.33 if no one sends me patches.  If someone does, then I will remove
> my 'delete the android code' patch in the staging tree.
> 

I don't work with Android, but the "no support from Google" phrase caught 
my attention :)  It seems like this isn't necessarily about support or 
raised issues not being addressed, but rather about a lack of progress 
being made developmentally or a general lack of interest in upstream 
inclusion.  If it was agreed to simply remove it, that's fine, I just was 
curious about the rationale.
--
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/