linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Backlight for v6.1

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: <CAHk-=whK-q1W-X0q0f_nBJ9sKyta-DVJhEAS4BF_oKAVAUQ4Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2022 10:59:35 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Backlight for v6.1

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 5:44 AM Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>    - Add support for MediaTek MT6370 Backlight

Hmm. This new driver has a

        depends on MFD_MT6370

but there is no such symbol anywhere.

It turns out the same is true of the MT6370 regulator driver that was
added during the previous merge window.

I do see that MFD_MT6370 in linux-next, but I don't see any pull
request for this, and now that I started looking I do see that we had
this already in 6.0.

I do *not* believe that it's ok to randomly take "drivers" that depend
on functionality that hasn't even been merged yet, and that are
basically just dead code but hidden away this non-obvious way.

I've pulled this, but I want to just state that this is bad, bad, bad.
If it has dependencies that aren't met, it damn well shouldn't be sent
upstream in a form where upstream can't even build test the thing.

                   Linus