netdev - Re: [PATCH 04/24] rtw89: add debug files

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: <CA+ASDXP8JU+VXQV1ZHLsV88y_Ejr4YbS3YwDmWiKjhYsQ-F2Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jul 2021 13:00:27 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/24] rtw89: add debug files

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 12:32 PM Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 11:38:26AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Well mainly, I don't really like people dreaming up arbitrary rules
> > and enforcing them only on new submissions.
>
> It is technical discussion. There is no reason to get personal.

I'm not really intending to make this personal, so apologies if it
appeared that way.

What I'm trying to get at is that
(a) no other wireless driver does this, so why should this one? and
(b) the feature you claim this driver can use does not appear suited
to the task.

It's easier to make suggestions than to make them a reality.

> > If such a change was
> > Recommended, it seems like a better first step would be to prove that
> > existing drivers (where there are numerous examples) can be converted
> > nicely, instead of pushing the work to new contributors arbitrarily.
>
> Hm, my experience as patch submitter is rather different, but who knows,
> every subsystem has diffent rules. Good to know, wireless is different.

I'm not an arbiter for "wireless" -- so my thoughts are purely my own
opinion. But I have noted some technical reasons why wireless drivers
may be different than ethernet drivers, and the suggested (again,
purely my own opinion) exercise might show you that your suggestion
won't really work out in practice.

Brian