linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:18:38 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
	Jeff Ohlstein <johlstei@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:18 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > This could have been done:
> > > 
> > > $ git show 08a610d9ef5394525b0328da0162d7b58c982cc4 | ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit | wc -l
> > > 35
> > > 
> > > Even then, using 35 CCs is generally silly.
> > > 
> > > It might make some sense for a cover letter and a
> > > patch series where the series made tree-wide changes
> > > in multiple directories.
> > 
> > Probably not even then: When a single mail header gets too long, you usually land
> > in some spam filter and get hate mail from the list owners. The lkml limit is 1024
> > characters (this may come from an official RFC, don't know), which is usually less
> > than 35 recipients.
> 
> Patches just shouldn't be this large. You want smaller patches for a lot
> of reason. Take the BKL, would it have been acceptable to make all the
> BKL changes in a single patch (and what would the CC have looked like)?
> If you do anything remotely sophisticated then , from my perspective, a
> tree wide patch just isn't going to work.

That's why on occasions we do transgress the established process to 
accommodate such changes.  Imagine just for a moment the patch that 
modified the interrupt callback prototype to remove the useless pt_regs 
argument.  Obviously, it had to be done atomically to the _whole_ tree, 
and it was agreed that this patch was to be applied at the end of the 
merge window.  But no one expected a single minute sending a CC to _all_ 
the driver authors.


Nicolas
--
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/