linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow GUP to fail instead of waiting on a page.

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:	Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:37:50 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Cc:	avi@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow GUP to fail instead of waiting on a page.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:31:57 +0200
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> wrote:

> > This?
> > 
> Yes, this is better. Thanks you. I see that the patch below is in your queue
> already. Should I re-spin my patch with improved comment anyway?

Nope, that's OK - I fold fixup patches into the base patch before
sending them onwards.

There's always a risk that someone will get a hold of an earlier
version of the patch, but a) sending out a v2 doesn't eliminate that
risk and b) it's not very important anyway (in this case) and c)
because I separate the base patch from the fixup patches, I'll easily
notice if someone merges an earlier patch, because I'm left holding
stray fixup patches.

--
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/