linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] AMD thresholding fixes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:57:31 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	EDAC devel <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] AMD thresholding fixes

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:49:52PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > If there are no issues, I'll add the queue to linux-next (I don't see a
> > branch from ras.git in linux-next, btw, which is strange).
> 
> Patches so far have been flowing from "ras" to "tip" to "linus". It
> hasn't quite been clear how linux-next fits into this. If we export
> to -next, then are we planning on sending those directly to linus,
> bypassing tip?

That's actually a good point. Once in -tip, they're seeing linux-next
anyway.

Ok, Ingo, what would you guys rather have:

* ras tree -> linux-next -> we send pull request to Linus

or

* ras tree -> -tip -> linux-next (automatically due to tip daily merges)
-> you send pull request to Linus

I guess I'm fine with both, second one makes us even lazier :)

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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/