netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] drivers/net Documentation/networking: Create directory intel_wired

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: <1287008906.1117.428.camel@Joe-Laptop>
Date:	Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:26 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc:	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
	Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>,
	Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
	Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>,
	PJ Waskiewicz <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	Alex Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	John Ronciak <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	e1000-devel <e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] drivers/net Documentation/networking:
 Create directory intel_wired_lan

On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 17:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 16:52 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 13:42, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > Perhaps it's better to move drivers from the very populated
> > > drivers/net directory into vendor specific directories similar
> > > to the Atheros approach used for drivers/net/wireless/ath/
> > NAK
> > First, I think we need to keep the documentation in /Documentation/networking.
> > Second, the changes are extensive and would create a lot of regression testing.
> I don't see any actual changes here other than layout.
> What kind of regression testing do you think necessary?

Jeff?

What regression testing would actually be done?

Any new objects are trivially validated against existing
objects.

> > We have been looking at solutions like this for future
> > drivers/hardware and is on the list of items we are currently working
> > on, but feel it should not be made retroactively due to the regression
> > testing and massive changes that would need to be made.
> 
> Might as well start somewhere.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html