linux-ext4 - Re: [GIT PULL linux-next] Add Compiler Attributes 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANiq72nLLhTf3AsXqLkPmK6TV_g7E3tML9XaM_zE45dM7XPn-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:34:28 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...m.net>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Martin Sebor <msebor@...il.com>,
        Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL linux-next] Add Compiler Attributes tree

Hi Stephen,

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:00 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Miguel,
>
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 00:36:52 +0200 Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org> wrote:
> >
> > Miguel Ojeda wrote on Wed, Oct 03, 2018:
> > > As I have read, -next is supposed to be a vision of what the merge
> > > window will look like after merging everything, i.e. ideally -rc1. For
> > > that to work for files out-of-tree (like these ones, which are not
> > > maintained by a single tree), changes should be allowed to be stacked
> > > on each other; otherwise, we cannot handle conflicts :-(
> >
> > The rule is the same as with a regular mainline pull; I don't have the
> > reference at hand but in some recent-ish pull request Linus said he
> > prefers the stable version with the conflict, and optionally you can
> > provide a second branch with the conflict resolved for reference, but
> > the pull request should be based on something stable even if it has
> > conflicts
> >
> > If there is a conflict Stefen will resolve it like Linus/Greg would, and
> > the resolved bit will be carried over everyday so it's not much more
> > work -- exactly like a regular pull request for inclusion in the main
> > tree :)
>
> Exactly what Dominique said.  I will fix up the conflict (unless it is
> a very complex conflict, in which case the author(s) should help) and
> the Linus (or Greg) will do the same.  If you do depend on a patch in
> Andrew's series, what happens if that patch does not get sent to Linus
> during the merge window or Linus rejects it?

This doesn't depend on anything. Not sure what is all the fuss about
-- people got confused into thinking we had to drop a patch for some
reason. As explained in the first email, I simply rebased v5 (which is
based on top of rcX) to resolve the conflict myself (i.e. it does
*not* depend on changes in -next). If you are the one solving
conflicts yourself (which is what I asked in my second email), there
is no problem to begin with; I will simply send v6 to you and we are
done.

When I sent the first email, I assumed that changes in -next were
supposed to be clean -- my mistake, but please document somewhere how
-next works! Specially that you are rerere'ing conflicts and
re-resolving them every day.

Then the discussion shifted to what to do with changes that actually
depend on other changes.

Cheers,
Miguel