linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc/powernv: remove dead NPU DMA code

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:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:48:47 +1000
From:   Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc/powernv: remove dead NPU DMA code



On 20/06/2019 16:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:20:08PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20/06/2019 16:03, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> Hi Linus,
>>>
>>> this goes back to the discussion at last years kernel summit, where
>>> we had the discussion on removing code never used by any in-kernel
>>> user an no prospects of one.  The IBM folks are unfortunately still
>>> dragging their feet on the powerpc side.  Can we revise this discussion?
>>>
>>> The use case here is a IBM specific bus for which they only have an
>>> out of tree driver that their partner doesn't want to submit for mainline,
>>> but keep insisting on keeping the code around (which is also built
>>> uncondіtionally for the platform).
>>
>>
>> I personally keep insisting on correct commit logs, i.e. not calling
>> working code dead and providing actual reasons for the change. Thanks,
> 
> If that is the only thing you are complaining about I can clarify it
> a little of course.

Please do so. For me the problem is that if a maintainer decides to pull
that then so be it but I want that person to know exactly what is
happening. As it is now - the code may seem dead as nobody complains so
- I complained.


> But it didn't sound like that was the actual
> problem.

I'd like to see some formal statement in a written form about where we
stand in regard to the out-of-tree drivers support^wacceptability
(cannot pick the right word). Thanks,


-- 
Alexey