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: <1413291739.7906.88.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:02:19 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] UBI: Fastmap: Care about the protection queue

On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 15:21 +0300, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
> Hi Artem/Richard
> 
> I think your discussion here stopped being relevant to this specific 
> patch but went on to the fastmap feature design in general :)
> This patch fixes a real bug in the current implementation of the 
> feature. What you're discussing requires a re-writing and re-design of 
> the feature. Perhaps this one can be merged and will be "fixed" later on 
> when you agree on how you would like FM to access WL data structures in 
> general?

First of all, "re-writing and re-design of the feature" is an
overstatement. So far this is on the "cleaning things up" side of the
spectrum, closer to the "re-factoring" area.

WRT "merge the fix now and improve later" - this is a good argument for
an "inside a company" discussion, where the primary TTM is the driving
factor.

For the community TTM is a good thing, but quality comes first.

Now, if this was about a regression, one could apply time pressure on
the maintainer. But we are talking about a problem which was there from
day 0.

It is completely normal for the maintainer to push back various
hot-fixes for the problem and request some reasonable re-factoring
first. This is what I do. This is very very usual thing in the Linux
community.

So far I did not ask anything huge and unreasonable, I think. Just
cleaner inter-subsystem APIs, less of the "fastmap uses the other
subsystems' internals" kind of things.

--
Artem.

--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ