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]

Message-ID: <s5hbmjmjhr1.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:00:34 +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 20:57:17 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> At which point did you change you mind for any of my (higher level) patches?
> > 
> > Since your patch brought a regression in the past.
> 
> Would you like to discuss the circumstances for the one glitch
> to which you might refer to?

No need for discussion.  It's difficult to recover a lost trust.

The best way is to show how you don't fall into the same issue any
longer, and it essentially means the actual testing of the patches.
Now it's clear why the testing is demanded?  There is no other way.


Takashi