linux-kernel - Re: question about samsung/sxgbe/sxgbe

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: <20160121.104520.110588445425253600.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:45:20 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	sakiwit@...il.com
Cc:	julia.lawall@...6.fr, shuahkhan@...il.com, bh74.an@...sung.com,
	ks.giri@...sung.com, vipul.pandya@...sung.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	shuahkh@....samsung.com
Subject: Re: question about samsung/sxgbe/sxgbe_xpcs.c

From: Jεan Sacren <sakiwit@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:10:56 -0700

> From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:36:28 -0500
>>
>> From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
>> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 19:54:20 +0100 (CET)
> 
> [...]
> 
>> > I just wondered.  I was looking at dependencies between networking files.
>> > This one stands out because nothing is dependenton it, even the files it
>> > is compiled with, and it doesn't contain the usual functions,
>> > register_netdev, etc.
>> 
>> Even with that explanation, this is a bogus situation.
>> 
>> There are no in-tree callers of this code.  It should be removed until there
>> are in-tree users.
>> 
>> Nobody can figure out if the interface for this is done properly without seeing
>> the call sites and how they work.  It is therefore impossible to review this
>> code and judge it's design.
>> 
>> If someone doesn't send me a removal patch, I will remove this code myself.
> 
> I have the patch ready.
> 
> Do you want me to submit it now during the merge window or wait till
> net-next opens up again?

This is rediculous.

No, you cannot submit patches for new features now.

Yes, you will submit to me a patch to remove the unused code.

Am I being clear enough now?