linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/17] staging: qlge: Fix rx stall in case of allocation failures

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191004151916.GA776553@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:19:16 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/17] staging: qlge: Fix rx stall in case of
 allocation failures

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:15:45PM +0900, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> On 2019/10/04 10:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 07:11:54PM +0900, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> [...]
> > 
> > As this code got moved to staging with the goal to drop it from the
> > tree, why are you working on fixing it up?  Do you want it moved back
> > out of staging into the "real" part of the tree, or are you just fixing
> > things that you find in order to make it cleaner before we delete it?
> > 
> > confused,
> > 
> 
> I expected one of two possible outcomes after moving the qlge driver to
> staging:
> 1) it gets the attention of people looking for something to work on and
> the driver is improved and submitted for normal inclusion in the future
> 2) it doesn't get enough attention and the driver is removed
> 
> I don't plan to do further work on it and I'm admittedly not holding my
> breath for others to rush in but I already had those patches; it wasn't
> a big effort to submit them as a first step towards outcome #1.
> 
> If #2 is a foregone conclusion, then there's little point in applying
> the patches. The only benefit I can think of that if the complete
> removal is reverted in the future, this specific problem will at least
> be fixed.

That makes more sense, I'll go queue these up now, as I don't want to
waste the work you did on this.

thanks,

greg k-h