[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <150039607.torZXMN7kc@positron.chronox.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:45:12 +0200
From: Stephan Müller <smueller@...onox.de>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <jason@...c4.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 3/4] Linux Random Number Generator
Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017, 10:32:10 CEST schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
Hi Greg,
> external references do not last as long as the kernel change log does :(
What would be the best way to cite a 50+ page document? I got a suggestion to
include the ASCII version of the document into Documentation/ -- but for the
first inclusion request, I was not sure whether to add such large document.
>
> Also a "wholesale" replacement of random.c is a major thing, why not
> just submit patches to fix it up to add the needed changes you feel are
> necessary? We don't like to have major changes like this, that's not
> how kernel development is done.
I have to admit that I tried that over the last years. I sent numerous small
cleanup patches (not changing any logic) and larger patches (with logic
changes). Even after pinging, I hardly got a response to any of my patches,
let alone that patches were accepted.
I have stated the core concerns I have with random.c in [1]. To remedy these
core concerns, major changes to random.c are needed. With the past experience,
I would doubt that I get the changes into random.c.
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg26316.html
Ciao
Stephan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists