linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Requirements and process

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:	Sat, 3 May 2008 17:45:57 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Requirements and process

On Fri, 2 May 2008 23:35:19 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 15:45:42 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > The following architectures are not in linux-next (and should be):
> > 
> > alpha		cris		frv
> > h8300		m32r		m68knommu
> > mips		mn10300		parisc
> > um		v850		xtensa
> 
> mips, m32r, parisc and xtensa do have git trees.  The rest are mastered as
> discrete patches in -mm.

So, I was wondering if it would be worth while having subsections to a
series file like:

# NEXT_PATCHES_START [<label> [<base>]]

# NEXT_PATCHES_END

With <label> sections being logically separate enough that we can talk
about them/drop them/merge them at different places etc.

Or am I over engineering? :-)

> Except for m68knommu, which pops unexpectedly out of the woodwork during
> the merge window.  I've asked that this be altered ;)

Yeah, I saw that, thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped