netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: stmmac: add drop transmit status feature

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: <20170412.120309.576259410886302201.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: stmmac: add drop transmit status
 feature

From: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:43:38 +0100

> Às 4:28 PM de 4/12/2017, David Miller escreveu:
>> From: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
>> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:13:33 +0100
>> 
>>> Às 3:51 PM de 4/12/2017, David Miller escreveu:
>>>> You cannot develop performance based features and only test their
>>>> impact on FPGA when almost all users are on real silicon.
>>>>
>>>> And this requirement is absolutely non-negotiable.
>>>>
>>>> You must test the impact on real silicon otherwise your performance
>>>> numbers, which are required to be provided in the commit message
>>>> for any "performance" feature or change, are completely useless.
>>>
>>> Next time I won't mention anything about performance, honestly. "Drop TX Status"
>>> is just an IP Core feature that can or not be used, it is up to the driver user.
>> 
>> Being dishonest about why a change might be desirable doesn't help things, in fact
>> now that you've stated this intent in the future, people know to be suspucious of
>> your changes.
> 
> Dishonest? I just sent the patch adding a optional configuration that can boost
> performance in applications where timestapping is not an issue. You can request
> more info in stmmac.txt, but calling me dishonest is a bit out of line.

If performance is a primary, if not the only, reason to make this
configuration setting then not mentioning it definitely falls into
the category of "sin of omission."

Please stop trying to weasel word your way out of this situation.

You're not interacting with the community properly, and your
unwillingness to do simple things people ask of you wrt. patch
submission and testing is upsetting a lot of people.