| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:02:43 -0800 (PST) From: david@...g.hm To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com> cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Thursday 03 December 2009 09:39:39 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: >> On 12/03/2009 03:26 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 09:11:19 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>> On 12/03/2009 02:45 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>>>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 06:53:59 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>>>> On 12/03/2009 07:39 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 09:07:41 am Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>>>>>> The merge window is upon us, which by strict rules means that anything >>>>>>>> not already in libata-dev.git#upstream needs to wait until 2.6.34. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, bug fixes and the like should definitely be in 2.6.33. >>>>>>>> ->init_host is definitely 2.6.34 material. Some of the other stuff >>>>>>>> could go either way. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you would like to apply some of my patches to 2.6.33 you are more than >>>>>>> welcome to do it. I can even prepare separate git tree with specific changes >>>>>>> to make it easier for you once you tell me which changes you would like to >>>>>>> see in it. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, great. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you prepare a patchset containing only fixes? Comment-only changes >>>>>> are acceptable too. Trivial changes too, if they are extremely trivial :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Include nothing that adds features, removes or unifies drivers, etc. >>>>> >>>>> Since this is pretty high-level description and some changes fall into >>>>> many categories at once (i.e. addition of proper PCI Power Management >>>>> handling could be considered both as a fix and as a feature) I prepared >>>>> a rather conservative set of changes (which means that unfortunately >>>>> it misses many enhancements available in my tree): >>>>> >>>>>> Please do it in standard kernel submit form, which is either >>>>>> (a) repost the patches (yes, again) being submitted for 2.6.33, or >>>>>> (b) a standard git pull request, which includes shortlog, diffstat, and >>>>>> all-in-one diff. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the detailed explanation of the standard kernel submit >>>>> form (I wonder how would I know this otherwise :) but the thing is that >>>>> at the current moment I'm not submitting anything to the upstream. >>>> >>>> Ok, that explains my confusion, then. I had thought you intended to get >>>> this stuff upstream, and into users' hands. >>> >>> Interesting argument but the vast majority of users use distribution kernels >>> which are not upstream and I doubt that any self-respecting distribution would >>> miss such amount of fixes. >> >> Interesting argument, but applied across 1000+ developers this is >> clearly an unscalable development model for distributions. Thus, > > Interesting that you have brought distributions' convenience before > non-distribution developers' one. and you are leaving those of us who use kernel.org out in the cold (forcing all non-distribution users to go through all the work that Jeff described) I'm not sure who you see as benifiting from this approach. David Lang -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists