linux-kernel - Re: Adjustments for a lot of 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]

Message-ID: <14619198-bebe-d215-5324-a14fbc2103fb@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:16:22 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Muralidharan Karicheri <mkaricheri@...il.com>,
        Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Adjustments for a lot of function implementations

> While we do not mind cleanup patches, the way you post them (one fix per file)

I find it safer in this way  while I was browsing through the landscape of Linux
software components.


> is really annoying and takes us too much time to review.

It is just the case that there are so many remaining open issues.


> I'll take the "Fix a possible null pointer" patch since it is an actual bug fix,

Thanks for a bit of change acceptance.


> but will reject the others, not just this driver but all of them that are currently
> pending in our patchwork (https://patchwork.linuxtv.org).

Will any chances evolve to integrate 146 patches in any other combination?


> Feel free to repost, but only if you organize the patch as either fixing the same type of
> issue for a whole subdirectory (media/usb, media/pci, etc)

Can we achieve an agreement on the shown change patterns?

Is a consensus possible for involved update candidates?


> or fixing all issues for a single driver.

I find that I did this already.


> Actual bug fixes (like the null pointer patch in this series) can still be posted as
> separate patches, but cleanups shouldn't.

I got an other software development opinion.


> Just so you know, I'll reject any future patch series that do not follow these rules.
> Just use common sense when posting these things in the future.

Do we need to try any additional communication tools out?


> I would also suggest that your time might be spent more productively if you would
> work on some more useful projects.

I hope that various change possibilities (from my selection) will become useful
for more Linux users.
How will the clarification evolve further?


Regards,
Markus