Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:52:12 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Stephan =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= <smueller@chronox.de>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <jason@zx2c4.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 3/4] Linux Random Number Generator
Message-ID: <20170718085212.GB25267@kroah.com>
References: <3910055.ntkqcq1Chb@positron.chronox.de>
 <2686871.50X2Wu6ijA@positron.chronox.de>
 <20170718083210.GB18340@kroah.com>
 <150039607.torZXMN7kc@positron.chronox.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <150039607.torZXMN7kc@positron.chronox.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1677
Lines: 38

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:45:12AM +0200, Stephan M?ller wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017, 10:32:10 CEST schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> > external references do not last as long as the kernel change log does :(
> 
> What would be the best way to cite a 50+ page document? I got a suggestion to 
> include the ASCII version of the document into Documentation/ -- but for the 
> first inclusion request, I was not sure whether to add such large document.
> > 
> > Also a "wholesale" replacement of random.c is a major thing, why not
> > just submit patches to fix it up to add the needed changes you feel are
> > necessary?  We don't like to have major changes like this, that's not
> > how kernel development is done.
> 
> I have to admit that I tried that over the last years. I sent numerous small 
> cleanup patches (not changing any logic) and larger patches (with logic 
> changes). Even after pinging, I hardly got a response to any of my patches, 
> let alone that patches were accepted.

Changing core kernel code is hard, really hard, for good reason.  I
don't recall seeing a patch series from you that addressed minor things
that you might have complaints about, why not send them again?

> I have stated the core concerns I have with random.c in [1]. To remedy these 
> core concerns, major changes to random.c are needed. With the past experience, 
> I would doubt that I get the changes into random.c.
> 
> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg26316.html

Evolution is the correct way to do this, kernel development relies on
that.  We don't do the "use this totally different and untested file
instead!" method.

thanks,

greg k-h