linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 09/24] input: Port hid-dr to ff-memless-next

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0792885b3347c5935a0af7a7a3f3bc70.squirrel@mungewell.org>
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:47:05 -0400
From:	simon@...gewell.org
To:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	madcatxster@...oid-pointer.net, oneukum@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jkosina@...e.cz, elias.vds@...il.com,
	anssi.hannula@....fi, simon@...gewell.org,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/24] input: Port hid-dr to ff-memless-next

> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:14:44PM +0000, madcatxster@...oid-pointer.net
> wrote:
>> This is another case where even the old code was flawed, right? Should
>> I try to stuff the fixes into these patches or would a few extra
>> patches addressing these problems be an easier to review solution? I
>> can append such patches to the MLNX patchset.
>
> Changes addressing pre-existing problem should go into separate patches
> (preferably applicable first).
>

As a by-stander who would like to see MLNX move forward, should it be
heldback by pre-existing problems in drivers that the MLNX dev(s) don't
have hardware to test against...?

Simon.

--
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/