| 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: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:27:28 +0000 From: Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org> To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [RFC PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Convert to be a platform driver On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote: >> >>> > -static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client, >> >>> > - const struct i2c_device_id *id); >> >>> > -static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client); >> >>> > -static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client); >> >>> > +static int max6650_probe(struct platform_device *pdev); >> >>> > +static int max6650_init_client(struct platform_device *pdev); >> >>> > +static int max6650_remove(struct platform_device *pdev); >> >>> > static struct max6650_data *max6650_update_device(struct device *dev); >> >>> >> >>> It would be good to remove these forward declarations in the future. >> >>> >> >>> If no one volunteers I'll happily do it. >> >> >> >> Guenter just did: >> >> >> >> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html >> >> >> >> Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series >> >> to avoid conflicts: >> >> >> >> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041223.html >> > >> As far as I can see, that patch set was not even tested, so how can it >> go in? I was told that any patch should be _runtime_ tested, too. >> Fwiw, I do not have time to test those personally, he would need to >> find someone else if that requirement really holds true. >> >> I would not really like to fix bugs appearing in that code to get my >> features in. >> >> Also, since my change has been around for 2-3 months now, I would >> really prefer not to be forced to rewrite it again from scratch. >> Surely, you can wait with those, more or less, cosmetic non-runtime >> tested changes? >> >> This would impose me a lot of additional work again, and I personally >> do not see the benefit of it. In my book at least, feature is over >> internal polishing. > > Right, I've had enough. I'm removing your patch from the MFD tree. > > I've asked too many people to give you a second chance and asked you > privately to behave yourself and treat others with respect. So far I > haven't seen an ounce of self control or depomacy from you. > > This is how it's going to work from now on: > > - You submit a patch > - It gets reviewed <----\ > - You fix up the review comments as requested -----/ > - Non-compliance or arguments with the _experts_ results in: > `$INTEREST > /dev/null || \ > grep "From: Laszio Papp" ~/.mail | xargs rm -rf` http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251 Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request. Could you please tell me what was wrong with that change, and why I did not get any respect not to "xargs rm -rf" my work in that area? I believe I was ignored instead of improving the change, and someone else tried to address the same thing. There was no argument in that thread. It was a technical change. I personally do not feel happy about 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