linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Differentiate SheevaPlugs and DockStars on the basis of the memory size.

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: <4D9E2D1C.7070102@ahsoftware.de>
Date:	Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:31:08 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Alexander Clouter <alex@...riz.org.uk>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Differentiate SheevaPlugs and DockStars on the
 basis of the memory size.

Am 07.04.2011 10:55, schrieb Alexander Clouter:
> In gmane.linux.kernel Alexander Holler<holler@...oftware.de>  wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I don't feel the need to waste my time prodcuing patches to get
>> them called "abominations". Which means my willingness to post further
>> patches just got below zero.
>>
> In a posting from Nico before you got offended it was explained to you
> *why* it was a Bad Idea(tm) and that that sort of thing simply does not
> work.  As a game, is it really a situation with *zero* probability of
> occuring that someone might produce a kirkwood/Sheeva flavoured board
> with only 128MB RAM?
>
> As well as a willingness to 'produce' patches (which to be frank
> *anyone* can do[1])...the hard part is producing *good* patches.  To
> produce good patches you need to read and understand the wisdom you get
> back from the mailing lists you post to.  If you do not understand the
> reasoning, ask.
>
> This is why you see [PATCHv${BIGNUM}] so often in a number of mailing
> lists.  If you are not willing to accept *everyone*, including yourself,
> writes crap code...well the value of your patches falls below zero.

Requiring a machine ID and the needed stuff to handle that for a board 
which just is using two GPIOs different than another board is why the 
ARM tree exploded. And requiring a machine ID just to follow the rule 
that a machine ID is much better than some pretty unique hw feature is 
in my humble opinion senseless and that the resulting code is more 
readable and better to maintain is a myth.

Sorry that I wanted to help there. Will not try it again.

Regards,

Alexander
--
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/