linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP

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, 30 Sep 2015 15:15:39 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Korsgaard <peter@...sgaard.com>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
	Kieran Bingham <kieranbingham@...il.com>,
	"kernel@...inux.com" <kernel@...inux.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:29:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > 
> > I see that your tree is 8 days old, so this may have been resolved
> > already, but would you be kind enough to ensure you remove the 6th
> > (ARM) patch from your repo please?  I wouldn't want it to cause
> > conflicts and for Maxime and yourself to get shouted at by Linus.
> 
> I prefer not to merge patches that cannot be tested.  Without
> the DT bits in patch 6 the other five patches are useless.  So
> I think patch 6 should be applied together with the other five
> which add the driver.

That's crazy talk.  If all subsystem maintainers abide by this rule
there would be chaos.  We'd either need to send pull-requests to each
other for every set which crossed a subsystems boundary, or 1000's of
merge conflicts would ensue at merge time.

The (sensible) rule we normally stick to is; as long as there isn't
a _build_ dependency, then the patches should filter though their
respective trees; _functional_ dependencies have nothing to do with
us as maintainers.  Another chaos preventing rule we abide by is; thou
shalt not apply patches belonging to other maintainer's subsystems
without the appropriate Ack-by and a subsequent "you may take this
though your tree" and/or "please send me an immutable pull-request".

> Of course if Linus wants me to revert patch 6 in case of any
> potential conflicts with Maxime's tree I'll do that.  Linus?

Why bother Linus?  The whole purpose of this is to _not_ pi$$ him
off.  This stuff is common sense.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/