| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003060937370.31447@localhost.localdomain> Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 09:40:18 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@...giomb.no-ip.org> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.sf.net Subject: Re: [git pull] drm request 3 On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: > > You shouldn't expect, by now, upgrade drm kernel without update libdrm > or at least recompile libdrm. Why? Why shouldn't I expect that? I already outlined exactly _how_ it could be done. Why are people saying that technology has to suck? > So when you saw a error message "driver nouveau 0.0.n+1 and have 0.0.n" > is completely right. No. It's _not_ right. The code knows what is wrong. Considering it a fatal error is _stupid_ and bad technology, when it could have just fixed it. > Is not a perfect world, but as talked on xorg mailing list, some time > ago, we do not have resources to test it in all versions. > Is better focus on just one combination. This is not about "testing all versions". It's fine to have just one combination. But why the hell doesn't it _load_ that one combination instead of just dying? IOW, there is a check for a version. It could - instead of dying - just dlopen() the right version instead. Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology? Linus -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists