netdev - Re: [pull request][for-next] Mellanox mlx5 Reorganize core driver directory layout

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: <20170113.121407.448230751444957957.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:14:07 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     saeedm@...lanox.com
Cc:     dledford@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, leon@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [pull request][for-next] Mellanox mlx5 Reorganize core driver
 directory layout

From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 19:22:34 +0200

> This pull request includes one patch from Leon, this patch as described 
> below will change the driver directory structure and layout for better,
> logical and modular driver files separation.
> 
> This change is important to both rdma and net maintainers in order to 
> have smoother management of driver patches for different mlx5 sub modules
> and smoother rdma-next vs. net-next features submissions.
> 
> Please find more info below -in the tag commit message-,
> review and let us know if there's any problem.
> 
> This change doesn't introduce any conflicts with the current mlx5
> fixes and cleanups posted on 2017-01-10 to net branch, and merge tests
> worked flawlessly with no issues.
> 
> This is the last pull request meant for both rdma-next and net-next.
> Once pulled, this will be the base shared code for both trees.

This is pretty crazy, it will make all bug fix backporting to -stable
a complete nightmare for myself, Doug, various distribution maintainers
and many other people who quietly have to maintain their own trees and
do backporting.

I really don't think you can justify this rearrangement based upon the
consequences and how much activity happens in this driver.

You should have thought long and hard about the layout a long time ago
rather than after the driver has been in the tree for many years.

Sorry.