linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/22] ARM: ux500: Fork MSP platform registration for step-by-step DT enablement

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:	Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:56:03 -0700
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
	arnd@...db.de, broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/22] ARM: ux500: Fork MSP platform registration for
 step-by-step DT enablement

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 04:07:58PM -0700, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> If you're adding and then removing *all* of them in this set,
>> why add them in the first place?
>
> So that there's no breakage during bisection.
>
> You should be able to roll the kernel back in between each of these
> patches and there to be full compatibility at each point. At least
> that was the intention. Is that wrong?

No it's correct, the only way to do what I'm thinking on may be
to squash them all into one gigantic patch, which is not good either.

So go ahead with this scheme, it's the lesser of two evils.
Acked-by etc.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/