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:	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:47:22 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	David Lang <david@...g.hm>
Cc:	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>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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?


* David Lang <david@...g.hm> 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

Actually, we never merged the Tux web server upstream, and the devfs concept has 
kind of made a comeback via devtmpfs.

And there are examples of bits we _should_ have merged:

 - GGI (General Graphics Interface)

 - [ and we should probably also have merged kgdb a decade earlier to avoid 
     wasting all that energy on flaming about it unnecessarily ;-) ]

And the thing is, I specifically talked about 'near zero cost' kernel patches that 
don't appreciably impact the 'core kernel'.

There's plenty of examples of features with non-trivial 'core kernel' costs that 
weren't merged, and rightfully IMHO:

 - the STREAMS ABI
 - various forms of a generic kABI that were proposed
 - moving the kernel to C++ :-)

... and devfs arguably belongs into that category as well.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/