linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 4.5-final

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:	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:13:53 -0700
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 4.5-final

On 03/03/2016 02:11 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Feel free to resend the parts that are actually critical, but explain
>> exactly why they are so critical when you do.
>
> Just to clarify: anything that contains "lightnvm" is definitely not
> critical enough. Are there even any users? I'm done seeing these
> constant large lightnvm patches.

Right, see previous email, that can surely be pulled. But at the same 
time, it's not exactly high impact stuff. That said, it should have gone 
to 4.6 originally.

> NVMe is certainly a lot more important, but if it's about hot unplug
> that has never been reliable before, or about cleaning up the reset
> sequence by avoiding unmapping the register space, I really don't see
> what makes those critical patches that should go in outside of the
> merge window.

Fair enough.

> So no more of this "several hundred lines of random code changes after
> rc6 for issues that aren't fixing an actual critical bug and has never
> worked before either".

I'll run a tighter ship for post-merge window.

> The block pull request was literally three times the size of all the
> other (*seven*) pull requests I've done today that were actually small
> fixes. Yeah, I'm not going to say that all of those were necessarily
> truly critical either, but at least they were very small and clearly
> fixes, and several of them fixed things like actual BUG_ON's or boot
> hangs.

I could have split it in 3? :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe