linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with Linus' 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, 10 Sep 2013 15:35:04 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is rather a fiasco.  "vfs: reorganize dput() memory accesses" made
> rather a mess of a 46 patch series which has been under development and
> test for two cycles so far.

Andrew, *please* don't do the insane rebasing you keep on doing.

Nobody else does that, and it adds more work for you, and makes your
patch bombs be untimely.

And I'll be honest, I don't care about the "more work for you" part,
since I don't really see it, but I do care about the "untimely" part.
That's the one that affects me. For example, I'm traveling starting
Friday, so I'll close the merge window on the road (linuxCon US next
week, a weekend of diving before that). It would be much nicer if I
have almost nothing pending before I leave.

And quite frankly, there is absolutely nothing that touches
fs/dcache.c that should be in your tree anyway, as far as I can tell.

But seriously - don't do the constant rebasing. I tell the git people
that, because I hate how it actually dilutes the value of any testing
they did. The fact that you rebase to the day you send the patches is
actually taking *away* value from what you do, and it adds a lot of
work for you.

So I'd (once again) suggest you base your pile of patches on the
previous stable kernel, and that linux-next take it *first* rather
than take it last.

             Linus
--
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/