linux-kernel - Re: ktap inclusion in drivers/staging/?

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: <1382604360.5283.9.camel@pippen.local.home>
Date:	Thu, 24 Oct 2013 04:46:00 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: ktap inclusion in drivers/staging/?

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 09:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Greg,
> 
> I was surprised to see 'ktap' appear in the staging tree silently, 
> via these commits that are visible in today's staging-next:
> 
>  2c856b9e3e06 staging: ktap: remove unused <asm/syscall.h> header file
>  687b63a3bfd5 staging: ktap: update email name in MAINTAINERS
>  c63a164271f8 staging: ktap: add to the kernel tree
> 
> ktap is pretty fresh instrumentation code, announced on lkml a 
> couple of months ago, and so far I haven't seen much technical 
> discussion of integrating ktap upstream, mostly I suspect because 
> not a _single_ patch was sent to linux-kernel for review. (!)

I feel I'm partially to blame. Jovi has sent us several emails to look
at his tree and I told him I would when I get time. What I should have
done was told him to break up the changes and send them out as a patch
series.


> 
> An announcement of a Git tree was made (which Git tree is not very 
> structured), and some very minimal discussion ensued, but no actual 
> patches were sent with an intent to merge, no technical arguments 
> were made in favor of merging and nothing conclusive was achieved.

Again, this may be partially our fault. We should have told Jovi to send
out the patches and a pointer to a git tree is not acceptable. Then we
could have had the necessary discussions required for this.

But I agree, this should not be just dumped into the staging tree until
the patches themselves have been posted and reviewed.

I'll have to NAK it too.

-- Steve


--
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/