linux-kernel - Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three 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:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:44:52 +0100
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:40:18 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> > No-testing is the worst case.
> 
> Free software development can occasionally mean that system tests
> can also be performed by a person who is different from the
> initial programmer.

So ask someone for testing.  If you can find them and confirm that the
patch works, I'll happily apply.  If not, it goes nowhere.

> >> * How do you think about to sort the remaining update candidates
> >>   by their change size (or software age)?
> > 
> > Irrelevant.
> 
> Do you want that I point any other patch out which you could find
> easier to handle again?

Only if they got tested and/or got reviewed by others.


Takashi