linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] SCSI fixes for 2.6.32-rc3

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:	Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:25:27 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jing Huang <huangj@...cade.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SCSI fixes for 2.6.32-rc3

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:06:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 11:15 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > So would it be acceptable to merge the 50 kloc of crap _during_ the
> > > > > merge window?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes. I actually looked at the driver (since I had pulled it - I've 
> > > > unpulled it but am still mulling it over), and while I think it looked 
> > > > huge and overly complex, it by no means gave me the kinds of vibes I 
> > > > get from some "obviously-ported-from-windows-with-no-clue" drivers.
> > > > 
> > > > So at least from my quick look I didn't get the feeling that the 
> > > > driver was "evil". For me, it's a timing issue.  I hate getting big 
> > > > pull requests after -rc1 is out, and I really don't like the feeling 
> > > > that people are just ignoring the merge window.
> > > > 
> > > > That said, if somebody wants to look more closely at the driver, and 
> > > > then wants to convince people that it should have gone through 
> > > > "staging", feel free. But that's not what I've personally been arguing 
> > > > about.
> > > 
> > > Greg, what's your take on the quality of this new driver? Do you have 
> > > some time to do a review of this with drivers/staging/ versus drivers/ 
> > > glasses on? The Git URI is at:
> > 
> > To me, the matter of staging versus actual tree isn't a quality issue 
> > (otherwise we'd be shifting ~75% of SCSI drivers to staging, depending 
> > on whose view of "quality" was being used). [...]
> 
> I think you need to update your notion of what goes into 
> drivers/staging/ - these days it's primarily about code/implementation 
> quality (Greg please correct me if i'm wrong about that).

No, so far that is the majority of why stuff is in staging, although
userspace apis also do play a part here.

But I leave it up to the subsystem maintainer to do what they want to
do, if they want to take coding style mistakes, well, it's their
responsibility to maintain the crud :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/