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: <20170119.003832.1262212358977773325.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:38:32 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     tom@...bertland.com
Cc:     saeedm@....mellanox.co.il, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        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: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:22:53 -0800

> In principle I  agree, but as I previously wrote backporting this
> driver is already a bear. We need to do something here as this is
> quickly approaching being infeasible to backport. Even if we don't
> restructure the directories I'd still like to see some effort towards
> feature modularization and isolation.

There simply is a lot changing all the time, no restructuring is going
to reduce that.  The driver simply gets a lot of churn.

Backporting such things through a bunch of file and/or directory
renames is seriously nothing but asking for more punishment.

That's why I am against it.