linux-kernel - Re: kdbus: to merge or not to merge?

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: <20150623064140.GA18300@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:41:40 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
	Havoc Pennington <havoc.pennington@...il.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
Subject: Re: kdbus: to merge or not to merge?

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:06:09PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> Can you opine as to whether you think that kdbus should be merged?

Ah, a preemptive pull request denial, how nice.

I don't think I've ever seen such a thing before, congratulations for
creating something so must have previously been lacking in our
development model in how to work together in a community in a productive
manner.

Not.

> I
> don't mean whether you'd accept a pull request that Greg may or may
> not send during this merge window -- I mean whether you think that
> kdbus should be merged if it had appropriate review and people were
> okay with the implementation.

How about you just wait for the real merge request to be submitted, and
we can go from there.  Perhaps I wasn't going to do it this release?
Perhaps I was?  Who knows?  Who cares.

> The current state of uncertainty is problematic, I think.  The kdbus
> team is spending a lot of time making things compatible with kdbus,
> and the latest systemd release makes kdbus userspace support
> mandatory.

I stopped here in this email, as this is just flat out totally wrong,
and I don't want to waste my time trying to refute other totally wrong
statements as that would just somehow give them some validation that
they could possibly be correct.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/