netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup patches

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241007095412.5a2a6e2c@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:54:12 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet
 <corbet@....net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup
 patches

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:15:01 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > We could merge or otherwise rearrange that section with the one proposed by
> > > this patch. But I didn't feel it was necessary last week.  
> > 
> > Somewhat, we don't push back on correct use of device-managed APIs.
> > But converting ancient drivers to be device-managed just to save 
> > 2 or 3 LoC is pointless churn. Which in my mind falls squarely
> > under the new section, the new section is intended for people sending
> > trivial patches.  
> 
> Thanks, I can try and work with that. Do you want to call out older drivers
> too? I was intentionally skipping that for now. But I do agree it should
> be mentioned at some point.

What is and isn't considered old may be hard to determine. I hope that
your existing "not part of other work" phrasing will give us the same
effect, as there's usually no other work for old drivers.