linux-kernel - Re: GPU-DRM-OMAP: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

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, 22 Sep 2016 11:11:16 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-OMAP: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

>> For the next pile of driver patches _please_ talk with driver maintainers
>> before starting to create&submit patches.

Did the software development discussion start a bit here?

Would you like to support an other "talking style" on a conference
like in Berlin next month?

>> Like I said I won't take them,

It's a pity.

>> and many of your changes are not clear-cut at all,

I know that specific update suggestions could be interpreted as controversial.

>> so I expect many driver maintaines also won't take them.

I am curious on useful responses.

>> Again, your contributions are welcome,

Thanks for another bit of constructive feedback.

>> but blindly following suggestions from code checkers in drivers

I propose to dare another look at corresponding information sources.

>> you cant test isn't really all that useful.

I have got an other impression.

How many improvements can still be achieved by usual (advanced) collaboration
techniques for free software development?

>> At the scale you're doing it, I think it's mostly wasting everyone's time

I hope not.

> :( I'd like to avoid that.

I am going to point more update opportunities out also for various Linux software.

> I second that.

Thanks for your opinion on this issue.

> After a very quick review, I see that the series splits related changes
> in multiple patches.

I chose a specific patch granularity for this proposal.

> I've already commented in reply to another series submitted by Markus
> that patches should then be combined.

Will such a combination depend on any more agreements between the involved contributors?

> I will thus ignore this series completely for the time being.

I hope that you can give similar ideas a second chance somehow.

Regards,
Markus