linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/9] cxl/mem: Add a driver for the type-3 mailbox

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:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:56:23 +0000
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/9] cxl/mem: Add a driver for the type-3 mailbox

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 09:17:37AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > +config CXL_MEM
> > > +        tristate "CXL.mem Device Support"
> > > +        depends on PCI && CXL_BUS_PROVIDER != n
> >
> > depend on PCI && CXL_BUS_PROVIDER
> >
> > > +        default m if CXL_BUS_PROVIDER
> >
> > Please don't set weird defaults for new code.  Especially not default
> > to module crap like this.
> 
> This goes back to what people like Dave C. asked for LIBNVDIMM / DAX,
> a way to blanket turn on a subsystem without needing to go hunt down
> individual configs.

Then at least do a

   default CXL_BUS_PROVIDER

but we really don't do this elsewhere.  E.g. we don't default the scsi
disk driver on if there is some host adapter selected.


> > > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Intel Corporation");
> >
> > A module author is not a company.
> 
> At least I don't have a copyright assignment clause, I don't agree
> with the vanity of listing multiple people here especially when
> MAINTAINERS has the contact info, and I don't want to maintain a list
> as people do drive-by contributions and we need to figure out at what
> level of contribution mandates a new MODULE_AUTHOR line. Now, that
> said I would be ok to duplicate the MAINTAINERS as MODULE_AUTHOR
> lines, but I otherwise expect MAINTAINERS is the central source for
> module contact info.

IMHO MODULE_AUTHOR is completely pointless.  I haven't used for ~15
years.  Especially as the concept that a module has a single author
is a rather strange one.