| 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: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:56:32 -0700 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] timer: clean up initializers and implement irqsafe timers Hello, Thomas. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:03:33PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Why should -next have different rules to mainline? It's faster paced and trees revert. The message specifically was a ping for objection and I was waiting for further response and would have waited until early next week (and written another "applied" message which would be another chance to veto). And even if that isn't enough for whatever reason and you or anyone else object it afterwards, it'll get reverted / reouted differently / whatever. As for subsystem boundary, at least I cross them and let others cross if the changes aren't significant and the proposed changes are likely to be be used only in that tree for the devel window. The timer change seems borderline to me. It isn't trivial but doesn't seem all that invasive to me. I don't think any critical protocol is breached here. If you're upset about the style of the ping, I apologize. I'll try to be more sensitive when pinging you. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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