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  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:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:08:12 -0700
From:	Greg KH <>
Cc:	"John W. Linville" <>,
	Pavel Machek <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] strip: move driver to staging

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:17:55PM -0700, wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:18:20AM -0700, wrote:
> >> if someone were to claim 'maintainership' and then do nothing other than
> >> complain if someone else were to change an API but not fix this in the
> >> process, how would this be different than the current situation?
> >
> > A person "claiming maintainership" would then be responsible for keeping
> > the API up to date and ensuring that the driver worked.  To do that,
> > hardware would probably need to be present.
> actually, I understood that the person changing the API was responsible 
> for making the changes. when did this change?

It did not.

> > Do you have this kind of hardware and are willing to accept ownership of
> > this driver?
> no, I do not have the hardware, but if there are no bugs reported against 
> this driverit would seem that having a 'maintainer' who made absolutly no 
> changes to the driver (just allowing API changes by others to be 
> implemented) would be the same thing as having no maintainer, but in the 
> first case you are willing to have the driver in the kernel, in the other 
> you want to rip it out.
> it used to be (not that long ago) that when people said that the reason 
> they didn't push their driver upstream into the kernel because there 
> wasn't that much demand for it, the response was that we wanted drivers 
> for everything, no matter how small the user base. I remember seeing posts 
> from core developers saying that we had drivers for hardware where there 
> were only single digit quantities ever built.
> now it appears that you have to have 'enough' users (an amount undefined)

That amount would be 1.  This driver does not have that, so it can be


greg k-h
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists