netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v4] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add Flow control/Fix Endianess issue/Separate IF register/Enumerate LEC macro/Move MSI processing/Use BIT(X)/Change Message Object index/Add prefix PCH

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:	Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:10:08 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	w.sang@...gutronix.de
Cc:	wg@...ndegger.com, tomoya-linux@....okisemi.com,
	andrew.chih.howe.khor@...el.com, masa-korg@....okisemi.com,
	sameo@...ux.intel.com, margie.foster@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de, kok.howg.ewe@...el.com,
	joel.clark@...el.com, yong.y.wang@...el.com, chripell@...e.org,
	qi.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v4] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add
 Flow control/Fix Endianess issue/Separate IF register/Enumerate LEC
 macro/Move MSI processing/Use BIT(X)/Change Message Object index/Add
 prefix PCH_

From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:07:16 +0100

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:43:25PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
>> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:39:47 +0100
>> 
>> > Please take into account that this patch got accepted by accident
>> > (because the maintainer did not respond properly in time). At that time
>> > the driver was incomplete, not ready for mainline and did not even work
>> > properly. Therefore it makes little sense to debug or even bisec these
>> > changes. Just for that reason I made an exemption and added my
>> > "Acked-by". Hope you can share my arguments.
>> 
>> You don't put stupid on top of stupid and justify the latter using
>> the former.
> 
> Is reverting the incomplete driver an option?

I told everyone that the plan was that we had several months
to fix this, and that's what we should do.

But yes if people are going to be maximally difficult about this and
refuse to split up the bug fixes, I will have to regrettably revert
the driver.

But let's avoid that if we can.
--
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