linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] fsstack: Fix up ecryptfs's fsstack usage

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, 5 Dec 2006 18:16:23 -0500
From:	Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fsstack: Fix up ecryptfs's fsstack usage

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 02:49:13PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:38:07 -0500
> Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > When your patches are queued in -mm please do test them there, and review
> > > others' changes to them, and raise patches against them.  Raising patches
> > > against one's private tree and not testing the code which is planned to be
> > > merged can introduce errors.
> > 
> > Sorry about that. I noticed your fix, and the one by Adrian. And I did add
> > them to my fsstack queue.
> 
> you don't have an fsstack queue any more ;)

Good point :)

> Please, I really do want developers to test their code in -mm once I've
> merged it.  What happens if there's some nasty interaction between your
> patch and someone else's?  We'll not find out about it and it'll get
> merged.

Point taken.

Josef "Jeff" Sipek.

-- 
I already backed up the box once, I can do it again.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/