linux-kernel - Re: pull request: wireless-next-2.6 2009-10-28

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: <20091030151428.GB2586@tuxdriver.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:14:28 -0400
From:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull request: wireless-next-2.6 2009-10-28

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thursday 29 October 2009 20:45:07 Pekka Enberg wrote:

> > I was simply pointing out that your time would probably be better
> > spent in improving the "proper" ralink wireless drivers but if you
> 
> Thanks for the concern.  However recent discussions made my realize how
> I should really be spending my time effectively way too well.
> 
> > _really_ prefer to spend your time in pointless arguments, go ahead.
> 
> I don't think that my technical arguments are pointless.

More like "petty"...

> Quite the contrary, I'm pretty confident that addressing my review concerns
> would result in better RT28x00 / RT30x0 support in the very near future.

Yeah, maybe.  Or they could just waste someone's time mashing
together some definitions to prematurely turn two header files into
three instead of spending that time on resolving operational issues.
In either case it is a judgment call, and IMHO not your call to make.

> > It should be pretty obvious by now that the best way to improve things
> > is to work with the relevant maintainers, not against them. (Unless
> > you wish your work to be ignored, of course.)
> 
> I work with a lot of other maintainers.  I would say that providing valuable
> review feedback is also "working with" (at least I would be very happy with
> such feedback in my projects).

"Valuable" feedback would be welcome.  In fact, your initial feedback
in this case was welcome -- even moreso had it included a patch.

Your arrogant follow-ups and self-righteous indignation, however,
is quite a bit less welcome.  Please take it somewhere else.

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/