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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 06:00:05 -0400 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:14:10AM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@...il.com> > Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM > Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation > To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> > > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:12:28PM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > > > Hello Greg, > > > > > > This is a follow-up on the series of 'ver_linux' patches I submitted at the end > > > of June, proposing a complete rewrite of the script in awk. > > > > > > So far, I have had feedback from one person, and I just wanted to get some > > > feedback from yourself too. > > > > > > I do appreciate the fact that you have other more pressing matters to attend to > > > at the moment, so there is no rush. > > > > > > I would appreciate hearing from you about my patches at your convenience. > > > > Last I saw, your patch series broke the build in the beginning and then > > fixed it up at the end, right? > > > > All patches have to never break the build, or functionality, at every > > step of the way. > > > > Sorry, it's a pain, but that's how the Linux kernel development model > > works. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > Thanks for your feedback and for clarifying how the Linux kernel > development model works. > > Which of the two avenues presented below would you recommend taking? > > (1). Submit a complete rewrite in awk as a single patch, to satisfy > the kernel development model requirements; > (2). Submit individual patches with repeating pieces of code > implemented as shell functions; > > While my personal preference lies with option (1), I am willing to go > ahead with option (2), should the community prefer the shell > implementation over the awk one. I think 1 might be good, but do it in 3 patches: - add new file scripts/ver_linux.awk - delete scripts/ver_linux - rename scripts/ver_linux.awk to scripts/ver_linux the first one people can review, the second no one cares about, and the third you can generate with the '-M' option to git format-patch so it shows up as nothing at all. Yes, for one patch there will not be the script, but I think we can live with that :) Sound better? thanks, greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists