linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] strip: move driver to 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091026165518.GE2792@tuxdriver.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:55:19 -0400
From:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] strip: move driver to staging

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:10:06PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Tue 2009-10-20 14:17:07, John W. Linville wrote:
> > Move the strip ("Starmode Radio IP") driver to drivers/staging.  For
> > several years this driver has only seen API "bombing-run" changes, and
> > few people ever had the hardware.  This driver represents unnecessary
> > ongoing maintenance for no clear benefit.
> 
> This seems like abuse of the staging process.

My mailbox has been filling-up with discussions of using staging like
this for the past few weeks.  I'm reasonably certain those threads
were on the public lists.

> There's no TODO to say what needs to be fixed. You just don't want to
> maintain it. Because there's nothing to fix, noone has reason to patch
> it, and the (working, good enough) driver will just be removed.

"ongoing maintenance for no clear benefit" -- that is what is wrong
with it.

> It also marks driver as broken when it is not...

I didn't mark it broken, I proposed moving it to staging.  As for
whether or not it actually is broken, how do you know?

The drivers in this thread are for pre-802.11 devices -- old ones
(e.g. ISA) at that.  If we actually have users that are willing
to maintain them then maybe that is fine.  But I don't see the
benefit of maintaining these simply as extra targets for API change
"bombing runs"...

> What about removing it in the regular way, that's
> Documentation/feature-removal.txt ?

This has been discussed recently as an alternative for unmaintained
drivers.  I suspect this is better than adding a note to a file that
no one reads...

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@...driver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.
--
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/