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]

Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2015 23:31:28 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	David Lang <david@...g.hm>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"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 Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:39:52AM -0700, David Lang wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> >And the thing is, in hindsight, after such huge flamewars, years down the line,
> >almost never do I see the following question asked: 'what were we thinking merging
> >that crap??'. If any question arises it's usually along the lines of: 'what was
> >the big fuss about?'. So I think by and large the process works.
> 
> counterexamples, devfs, tux

Don't knock devfs.  It created a lot of things that we take for granted
now with our development model.  Off the top of my head, here's a short
list:
	- it showed that we can't arbritrary make user/kernel api
	  changes without working with people outside of the kernel
	  developer community, and expect people to follow them
	- the idea was sound, but the implementation was not, it had
	  unfixable problems, so to fix those problems, we came up with
	  better, kernel-wide solutions, forcing us to unify all
	  device/driver subsystems.
	- we were forced to try to document our user/kernel apis better,
	  hence Documentation/ABI/ was created
	- to remove devfs, we had to create a structure of _how_ to
	  remove features.  It took me 2-3 years to be able to finally
	  delete the devfs code, as the infrastructure and feedback
	  loops were just not in place before then to allow that to
	  happen.

So I would strongly argue that merging devfs was a good thing, it
spurned a lot of us to get the job done correctly.  Without it, we would
have never seen the need, or had the knowledge of what needed to be
done.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/