netdev - Re: [PATCH] stmicro: rename it to dwc to improve future development

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:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:58:50 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com
Cc:     peppe.cavallaro@...com, alexandre.torgue@...com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stmicro: rename it to dwc to improve future development

From: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:26:31 +0000

> The goal of this patch is to create an oficial Designware Ethernet place
> to deploy new drivers based on this family of IPs. stmmac was left
> untouched since it is a designware based driver. New ethernet designware
> IP based drivers should be placed in this place, improving code organization
> and it becomes clear to the kernel user the purpose and scope of each driver.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>

Sorry, I am not applying this.

This would mean that every single -stable backport of a fix to this
driver would require fixing up the directory and/or file name of every
single change without any exception.

This is an unreasonable burdon to put upon me, and every single person
who has to backport bug fixes into older releases of the kernel.

Please stop submitting this rename change.  It is fine to leave the
driver with the stmmac name, and there is zero user benefit to the
rename and only negatives for people who have to work on backports.

I saw no agreement reached between yourself and anyone who voiced
opposition to this driver rename.  Therefore it was entirely
inappropriate for you to resubmit this change again.

I heard very clearly your argument that you would help with the problem
with the backports, but that is a completely empty gesture.  Here's why.

You cannot help with the problem, nor can any other developer working
on this driver.  People all over the world are going to want to
backport this patch or that, and I myself work in my own little
routine and can't depend on having to have a back and forth with you
over and over again for every single fix to this driver I decide is
reasonable for a -stable backport.