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  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:   Fri, 12 May 2017 10:23:37 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <>
To:     Joe Perches <>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <>,
        Stephen Hemminger <>,
        Wolfram Sang <>,
        Haiyang Zhang <>,,
        LKML <>,
Subject: Re: Clarification for general change acceptance

> Developer reputation matters for somewhat controversial
> patches being applied as well as non-controversial and
> obviously correct patches being ignored.

I am aware that there are more factors involved.

> Your reputation means most all of your patches fall into
> the latter category.

I hope that this situation will evolve into directions which you would prefer more.

> You have produced many trivial patches

This is true.

I started my concrete contributions to Linux software modules with simple
source code search patterns.

> that have caused new defects.

A few unwanted programming mistakes just happened somehow.

> That is simply unacceptable.

Glitches are not desired as usual.

> Especially when you don't immediately fix the problems you cause.

I find my response times reasonable to some degree so far.

Remaining open issues can be clarified by a corresponding constructive
development dialogue, can't they?

> If you would stop producing the trivial and instead
> channel your efforts into actual bug fixing and logic
> corrections and not just style modifications with no
> code impact, your patch acceptance rate would increase.

I find your conclusion appropriate.

But I will come along source code places where I am going to update details
which are also trivial.

> I have given you many suggestions for actual structural
> improvements to kernel code.

I have got an other impression. There were a few occasions where advanced
change possibilities were proposed.

> You have ignored _all_ of them and I am unlikely to try
> to interact with you any longer until your wheat:chaff
> ratio changes.

Can the efforts for deleting questionable error messages around Linux memory
allocation functions improve this situation?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists