On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:45:12AM +0200, Stephan Müller 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
