linux-kernel - Re: [RFC3 nowrap: PATCH v7 00/18] ILP32 for ARM64

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:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 14:47:04 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, szabolcs.nagy@....com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, cmetcalf@...hip.com,
        philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com, joseph@...esourcery.com,
        zhouchengming1@...wei.com, Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com,
        agraf@...e.de, geert@...ux-m68k.org, kilobyte@...band.pl,
        manuel.montezelo@...il.com, pinskia@...il.com,
        linyongting@...wei.com, klimov.linux@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
        bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org, Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [RFC3 nowrap: PATCH v7 00/18] ILP32 for ARM64

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:38:23PM +0530, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:32:59PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > This series enables aarch64 with ilp32 mode, and as supporting work,
> > introduces ARCH_32BIT_OFF_T configuration option that is enabled for
> > existing 32-bit architectures but disabled for new arches (so 64-bit
> > off_t is is used by new userspace).
> > 
> > This version is based on kernel v4.9-rc1.  It works with glibc-2.24,
> > and tested with LTP.
>  
> Hi Arnd, Catalin
> 
> For last few days I'm trying to rebase this series on current master,
> and I see significant conflicts and regressions. In fact, every time
> I rebase on next rc1, I feel like I play a roulette.
> 
> This is not a significant problem now because it's almost for sure
> that this series will not get into 4.10, for reasons not related to
> kernel code. And I have time to deal with regressions. But in general,
> I'd like to try my patches on top of other candidates for next merge
> window. I cannot read all emails in LKML, but I can easily detect
> problems and join to the discussion at early stage if I see any problem.
> 
> This is probably a noob question, and there are well-known branches,
> like Andrew Morton's one. But at this stage it's very important to
> have this series prepared for merge, and I'd prefer to ask about it.

I'm not entirely sure what the question is. For development, you could
base your series on a final release, e.g. 4.9. For reviews and
especially if you are targeting a certain merging window, it's useful to
rebase your patches on a fairly recent -rc, e.g. 4.10-rc3. I would
entirely skip any non-tagged kernel states (like middle of the merging
window) or out of tree branches. There may be a case to rebase on some
other developer's branch but only if there is a dependency that can't be
avoided and usually with prior agreement from both the respective
developer (as not to rebase the branch) and the involved maintainers.

-- 
Catalin