linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi devices

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, 24 Sep 2020 17:36:36 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Srinivasan Raju <srini.raju@...elifi.com>
Cc:     mostafa.afgani@...elifi.com, pureLiFi Ltd <info@...elifi.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi devices

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:48:51PM +0530, Srinivasan Raju wrote:
> +PUREILIFI USB DRIVER
> +M:	pureLiFi Ltd <info@...elifi.com>

I need a real person here, having aliases as maintainers results in a
lack of accountability :(

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/staging/purelifi/TODO
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +TODO:
> +	- checkpatch.pl cleanups
> +
> +Please send any patches or complaints about this driver to pureLiFi Ltd
> +<info@...elifi.com>

Why not just do these fixups on your own right now and submit it to the
"real" part of the kernel?  That should take what, a day or so max?

Just sending stuff to staging because you don't want to do coding style
cleanups feels very odd.  It takes much more work and energy to do it
this way than to just do it right the first time and get it merged to
the networking subsystem, right?

So why do you want to send it to staging?

thanks,

greg k-h