linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum dataMode in rf69

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: <b7e6f4b5-5aa6-a2cb-40d2-a9859489db8c@smarthome-wolf.de>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:21:16 +0200
From:   Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux@...f-Entwicklungen.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum dataMode in rf69_enum.h

Am 04.12.2017 um 21:56 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:31:06PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
>>>> Then it might be, that DATAMODUL_MODE_PACKET might need an other value.
>>>
>>> That's future code so we can delete that sentence for now.
>>
>> With the rule above, you are absolutely right. But we now spend time, to
>> remove an currently non necessary feature ("double layer"), which will take
>> time to re-introduce as soon, as someone wants to support a second chip.
>> Isn't that double-work and a thus a pitty?
>>
> 
> It is what it is...  In the kernel we insist all code have a user right
> now when it's merged.  Unused code or future code is deleted.  We hate
> abstraction layers.  Everyone argues that their abstraction layer is
> different and good but kernel devs instinctively hate abstraction.
> 
> To be honest, in the kernel we do do a lot of work twice.  I made people
> redo 9 quite large patches for this pi4333 driver today.  And they're
> probably going end up conflicting and have to be redone again...  :/
> That does suck.  I don't know what to do about it.
> 
> In my view it helps that people sending patches don't ever have to worry
> about future code and we can focus on what exists now.  Greg will never
> reject code for "future reasons" unless the future is almost right away
> like tomorrow or maybe the next day.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 

Hi Dan,

I am self employed and controling two small companies. For me it is very 
important to do efficient work - otherwise the 24 hours of a day are too 
short to get my work done, even if I include the night.

The goal of most projects (my own, as well as my customers) is very 
clear, but normaly you are not able to reach it in one pass. Therefore 
projects are split up in parts and try to release parts, to be on market 
earlier.
No one would accept, if I would optimise a software for a current 
release in a way, that I close doors for the final goal.

So I agree: We can't change the rules and have to take them as they are.

But if I read your lines, it's shaking me. I observed this sending the 
patch over and over again and it realy bugs me. Not beacause it might be 
boring, mainly because for me it feels like a huge waste of time - time 
I simply don't have.
Same applies to removing stuff, when I already now, (at least for my 
products) I will need it in future.

Maybe controlling a straup, developing fancy new products, the market 
likes to have (and in a time, the market is accepting you to present 
them) and contributing to the kernel need that different kind of mind 
set, that it's dam hard to do both at the same time.

Cheers,
Marcus