| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:15:37 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org> Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Don't complain in gic_get_cpumask() if UP system On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:51:59AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Blah. OK then, just send it to Thomas. > > Initially this code was written and committed by RMK which is why I > suggested you send him the fix. It _should_, because the author of the file presumably knows how the driver is supposed to work much better than the maintainer of the subsystem. So driver authors _should_ always be involved in the handling of the patch. Unfortunately, that rarely happens, and I've given up any hope of the old kernel process(es) remaining where authors were responsible for the code they wrote. Somehow, kernel maintanence has been perversed so that subsystem maintainers get to decide whether patches to drivers that they don't have hardware for are to be applied irrespective of whether the driver author has any input to it. -- 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