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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 23:25:25 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com> To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, ooo@...ctrozaur.com, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, hch@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] libosd: Remove ignored __weak attribute On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:15:11PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 10/26/18 8:35 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > The second observation I'll make is that if someone is proposing a > > cleanup patch, it's unfair to dump on the person proposing the cleanup > > patch the (non-trivial) effort to drop a driver/file system/subsystem. > > Hi Ted, > > Maybe I was not clear enough. It never was my intention to suggest that Nick > or Nathan should remove the OSD code. This is something I'm willing to do > myself. BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to explain me why the patch at > the start of this thread was submitted by people who never have used the > libosd driver and who do not have any plans to use it ever. > Hi Bart, We've been cleaning up Clang warnings seen in various configurations. In this case, I believe this warning shows up in an arm64 allyesconfig build (would probably show up in an x86_64 one too but I'm not going to test right now). More info: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/58 Cheers, Nathan > > If the maintainer wants to drop a driver/file system, that should be > > the maintainer's responsibiltiy; not someone proposing a > > cleanup/maintenance patch. > > I think anyone who makes tree-wide changes has the freedom to suggest to > remove a driver. Having to modify drivers that are no longer maintained when > doing tree-wide changes can be a real pain. > > Additionally, you may have missed earlier discussions on the linux-scsi > mailing list about this driver. The first time it was suggested to remove > this driver was several years ago. The outcome of a discussion of a few > weeks ago is that there is agreement about the removal of this driver. See > also the following messages: > * https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg123738.html > * https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg123742.html > > Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists