linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm: msm: remove board file for Nexus One (ie. mahimahi)

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:	Mon, 19 May 2014 13:53:28 +0200
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	dwalker@...o99.com
Cc:	David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: msm: remove board file for Nexus One (ie. mahimahi)

Daniel,

On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:57 +0000, dwalker@...o99.com wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 08:10:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > This is not something I get to decide. Nevertheless, given that this
> > file shouldn't have been merged to begin with, I'd appreciate it if some
> > deadline could be agreed upon.
> 
> I think I merged it actually, but there's no rules about what gets merged. How when what order, etc.
> It's all free form.

There do not seem to be formal rules. But there surely are some
requirements for code to be added. One of the requirements is, I think,
that it should build. This file cannot be built: it is not wired into a
Makefile and it also includes, what appears to be, its own header file,
but that header is not part of the tree.

Even the most dubious of code in drivers/staging is expected to "compile
properly"!

> > That being said, I'm not sure how having just this file in mainline
> > helps your development efforts. It seems it did receive some updates
> > for, well, treewide stuff. But it surely didn't get build coverage or
> > runtime testing. So would you lose much if it only remains in your
> > development tree?
> 
> It's effort to remove it.. Your asking for it to get removed, then re-added.. That sounds
> like a fairly large amount of effort vs just leaving it in place.

Yes, it takes some effort to remove code. And it will also take effort
to re-add that code later. But I think that's a risk one runs with code
that has clearly never been buildable.


Paul Bolle

--
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/