linux-kernel - Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Rename the device ids to contain the hwmon suffix

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: <CAOMwXhPytpX7wmxvudzJH0R3-QdRHrfpDMWVSqOwq4AZnmw3eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 03:35:41 +0000
From:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>, 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 3:23 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:59:55PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> I think I'll let Jean handle this one.
>
> Guys, please be a bit more definite.
>
> We should get over this long ping-pong game. It has been clearly
> stated that either way is fine, and there was no objection for months
> to either way either, and now the feature is just not moving forward.
> This is the first time I have this sorrow experience that I am having
> here in hwmon, unfortunately. A lot of effort spent, and nothing got
> done.
>
> As I said before, disagreeing is fine and natural. What is not fine is
> wasting people's time for months and not making it clear what the
> hwmon maintainers want, and months later after the work, the opposite
> is claimed than before.
>
> I am sorry if it sounds harsh, but currently this is how I see the
> situation. If the MFD solution gets rejected, I consider it a huge
> maintainer mistake since both of you were involved, and have never
> ever spoken up for months that this would not be acceptable. In fact,
> as quoted earlier in this thread, the opposite had been said.
>
> I would like to get over the hwmon situation as soon as possible, so
> please guys kindly advise what you would *really* like to see. I do
> not really mind who makes the decision, but rejecting months of work
> due to miscommunication is still better than continuing the same!

(Alternatively, who is the higher-level decision maker over the
drivers (and hence driver subsystem maintainers) to ask for making a
final decision if you cannot make it?
I would hope for this being the last resort, but there is a point
where it is necessary to remain productive, in my opinion.)
--
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/