netdev - Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver

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: <20240405104140.GZ11187@unreal>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:41:40 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Leonid Bloch <lbloch@...dia.com>,
	Itay Avraham <itayavr@...dia.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
	Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 08:46:41PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 04/04/2024 19:35, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 07:06:53PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> >> Why?  What does the kernel get out of it?
> >>
> >> Maybe *you* need them to be supported, but maybe you should have
> >>  thought of that earlier in the design process.  ("A failure on
> >>  your part to foresee the eminently foreseeable does not
> >>  constitute an emergency on mine.")
> >> If we let folks bypass our standards with a _fait accompli_, we
> >>  don't really have standards in the first place.
> > 
> > Sorry, who are "we" and what are "our standards"?
> 
> As should be obvious from context, "we" in that sentence referred to
>  the mainline kernel.  And while participants in this thread currently
>  disagree on what "our standards" are, I hope it is not contentious
>  that the kernel community *does* have standards as to what code and
>  design is acceptable for inclusion.

You didn't answer my question. What are "our standards"?

Thanks