linux-kernel - Re: [PULL REQUEST] i2c-for-6.8-rc1-fixed

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: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:02:45 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, 
	Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>
Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] i2c-for-6.8-rc1-fixed

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 13:30, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>  And a big series for the
> designware-driver needed to be reverted because issues have been
> reported late in the cycle and no incremental fix has been found yet.
> This is the fixed pull requested with a missing revert added.

Honestly, with three quarters of the commits being the broken series,
followed by reverting it, I get the feeling that this would be better
rebased.

I don't like rebasing, but I also don't like "look, we had most of
these commits broken, so we just reverted them all" all noticed before
it even hits my tree.

So I really feel like at that point you go "this branch was a failure"
and start anew - aka rebase. Along with a big explanation of why a
recent rebase ended up happening, so that there is no confusion about
it.

              Linus