linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] wireless: move obsolete drivers to staging

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, 12 Oct 2023 14:47:03 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] wireless: move obsolete drivers to staging

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:58 +0300 Kalle Valo wrote:
>> > No matter what the time frame is, it's never going to line up with all
>> > distros, or catch everyone properly.  
>> 
>> Yeah, that's true.
>> 
>> > I recommend, just delete all the ones you feel are not being used, in a
>> > patch that removes them one-by-one, so that it is trivial to revert if
>> > someone shows up and says "hey, my device stopped working!" a few years
>> > in the future.  
>> 
>> I'm starting to lean towards this as well. We have talked about this for
>> so long now but no practical solution ever found so maybe just bite the
>> bullet finally. What do others think?
>
> FWIW in Ethernet we do what Greg says. Delete it, if someone complains
> we revert back in. The revert did actually happen once, it was pretty
> painless (Greg even took it into stable tree, IIRC).

Thanks, good to know that you have had positive experiences with this
approach. As I didn't hear any concerns from anyone so I'm convinced we
should do this. I'm sure it will make my life a lot easier :)

Is anyone willing to submit patches? Use wireless-next as the baseline
for patches and one driver per commit, please. That way it's easy to
revert later, if needed (hopefully not).

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches