linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] STAGING fixes and new drivers for 2.6.35-git

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:	Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] STAGING fixes and new drivers for 2.6.35-git

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Here are a number of bugfixes for the drivers/staging tree, as well as 3
> new stand-alone drivers.  The new drivers kind of obscure the diffstat
> showing the other fixes due to their size.

I pulled, but quite frankly, I don't want to see this kind of pull request 
again. There's just no _point_. 

I'll take new drivers outside the merge window, but there has to be some 
_reason_ for them. See the whole SCSI discussion a few merge windows ago. 
The new driver needs to improve the life of somebody to the point where I 
want to feel that there is a _reason_ for pulling it outside the merge 
window.

These drivers? Not so much. Not even f*cking close.

In other words: tell me why the new drivers couldn't just have waited for 
the next merge window? Really?

		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/