linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] gnss: add new GNSS subsystem

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: <20180629114646.GU629@localhost>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:46:46 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        alan@...ux.intel.com, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "H . Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] gnss: add new GNSS subsystem

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:46:07AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > > Finally, note that documentation (including kerneldoc) remains to be
> > > written, but hopefully this will not hinder review given that the
> > > current interfaces are fairly self-describing.
> > 
> > This all looks great.  Thanks for doing this work and adding a new
> > subsystem for something that has been asked for for many years.
> > 
> > All now merged in my tree, nice job!
> 
> I don't think discussion was finished on this one.
> 
> In particular, we agreed that /dev/gnssrawX would be better device
> name, so that we still have place where to put proper abstraction
> layer in future.

I did not agree with you on that. I said we could consider that name if
this was to be changed at all, which I do not think is necessary for
the reasons spelled out in this thread.

Johan