linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/2] Documentation/process: Add subsystem/tree handbook

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]

Message-ID: <20201217150537.GC23634@zn.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:05:37 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        john.stultz@...aro.org, acme@...hat.com, frederic@...nel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Documentation/process: Add subsystem/tree handbook

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:49:04PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Suppose I came along with my nifty new architecture, and it dragged in a
> > whole new set of timer and interrupt subsystems that duplicated a lot of
> > what's in the kernel now, but buried a few "local quirks" deep in the
> > middle.  "Don't worry", I say, "we'll factor out the common stuff later
> > once we figure out what it is; I'd rather not deal with the bikeshedding
> > now". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect I might just get a response
> > back from you.  That's not how we normally do things.
> 
> Darn. Not much I can argue about.

So, that thing.

I have this ontop of 5.10 along with most comments integrated.

Now, I'm thinking if I start sending those pieces which belong into the
main process documentation, the bikeshedding that is going to ensue is
going to be insane. And we have day jobs too, you know. :)

Thus, I'm also thinking that I should do this piecemeal and once we've
all agreed on one aspect and you've applied it, Jon, I'll carve out and
send the next. Rinse and repeat.

How does that sound, makes sense?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette