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:	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:08:01 +0000
From:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Rename the device ids to
 contain the hwmon suffix

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:
> Le Tuesday 11 February 2014 à 08:28 +0000, Laszlo Papp a écrit :
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:
>> > Hi Laszlo,
>> >
>> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 03:13:37 +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:
>> >> > Additionally, dashes are explicitly forbidden in hwmon
>> >> > device names.
>> >>
>> >> Also, where is that documented?
>> >
>> > In Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface:
>> >
>> > *********************
>> > * Global attributes *
>> > *********************
>> >
>> > name            The chip name.
>> >                 This should be a short, lowercase string, not containing
>> >                 spaces nor dashes, representing the chip name. This is
>> >                 the only mandatory attribute.
>> >                 I2C devices get this attribute created automatically.
>> >                 RO
>>
>> Time to revisit this decision....
>>
>> So, based on the fact that children device names usually contain
>> dashes, I do not understand why hwmon would be any special in this
>> regard. It is possible that the hwmon developers have not faced much
>> MFD situation before, and so, this was not considered to be handled
>> like in other subsystems.
>>
>> I am proposing to change this "rule"...  Any objection?
>
> I'm giving up here, sorry. There's no point in me writing any more on
> the topic as you are not listening to me. I do not have the impression
> you are doing any effort to understand what I'm saying. Plus you keep
> focusing on things that do not matter and problems for which a solution
> has already been provided.

Does it mean the people cannot come up with ideas if they think
something may be better than some provided way? Surely, software
evolves over time and people are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong
right?

I can assure you that I do listen, please assume good faith with ideas
thrown in. If you think it is that bad an idea, you could have
explained why so, so that I and others can also understand it who do
not yet, right?
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ