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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710301745530.2160@hadrien>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:47:01 +0800 (CST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, 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



On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> > 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)

Just for the record, while this may work for media, it won't work for all
subsystems.  One will quickly get a complaint that the big patch needs to
go into multiple trees.

julia

>
> 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
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>