linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] dt: deps: dependency based device creation

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:	Fri, 16 May 2014 21:31:20 +0400
From:	Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>
To:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
Cc:	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Jon Loeliger <jdl@....com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] dt: deps: dependency based device creation

Wed, 14 May 2014 23:10:39 +0200 от Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>:
> Am 14.05.2014 22:06, schrieb Grant Likely:
> > On Wed, 14 May 2014 16:49:05 +0200, Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de> wrote:
> >> Am 14.05.2014 16:05, schrieb Grant Likely:
> >>> On Mon, 12 May 2014 18:47:53 +0200, Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de> wrote:
> 
> >> Hmm, I don't really care if that will be merged. I have no motivation to 
> >> fight with Linux kernel maintainers and I don't know if I will spend the 
> >> necessary time to do so.
> > 
> > The people you need to convince are Rob, Greg, and me, and you've got my
> > attention. If I'm convinced, then I can probably convince Greg also.
> > You've got an interesting approach, and I hope you won't give up on it.
> 
> Sorry, but that point of the view is already a problem. Why do I have to
> convince you people?
> 
> To summarize:
> 
> Linux kernel maintainers
> 
> - don't like code they haven't written theirself,
> - don't like code which doesn't look like they have written it theirself,
> - don't like ideas they haven't had themself,
> - do feel good in their closed group they have formed,
> ...

Very correct and well said.
For many subsystems is it as is, we cannot break these barriers.

---