netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 5/5] net: mscc: ocelot: expose ocelot wm functions

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:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:48:52 +0000
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 5/5] net: mscc: ocelot: expose ocelot wm
 functions

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 06:09:22PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat,  4 Dec 2021 10:28:58 -0800 Colin Foster wrote:
> > Expose ocelot_wm functions so they can be shared with other drivers.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> 
> Yeah.. but there are no in-tree users of these. What's the story?
> 
> I see Vladimir reviewed this so presumably we trust that the users 
> will materialize rather quickly?

Thank you for highlighting this.

Vladimir told me recently over the phylink get_interfaces vs get_caps
change for DSA, and I quote:

  David who applied your patch can correct me, but my understanding from
  the little time I've spent on netdev is that dead code isn't a candidate
  for getting accepted into the tree, even more so in the last few days
  before the merge window, from where it got into v5.16-rc1.
  ...
  So yes, I take issue with that as a matter of principle, I very much
  expect that a kernel developer of your experience does not set a
  precedent and a pretext for people who submit various shady stuff to the
  kernel just to make their downstream life easier.

This sounds very much like double-standards, especially as Vladimir
reviewed this.

I'm not going to be spiteful NAK these patches, because we all need to
get along with each other. I realise that it is sometimes useful to get
code merged that facilitates or aids further development - provided
that development is submitted in a timely manner.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!