linux-ext4 - Re: [GIT PULL] vfs: improve DAX behavior for 5.8, part 3

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: <CAHk-=wgTMxCAHVgtKkbSJt=1pBm+86bz=RbZiZE-2sszwmcKvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:00:43 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, ira.weiny@...el.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] vfs: improve DAX behavior for 5.8, part 3

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:43 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I did a test merge of this branch against upstream this evening and
> there weren't any conflicts.  The first five patches in the series were
> already in the xfs merge, so it's only the last one that should change
> anything.  Please let us know if you have any complaints about pulling
> this, since I can rework the branch.

I've taken this, but I hate how the patches apparently got duplicated.
It feels like they should have been a cleanly separated branch that
was just pulled into whoever needed them when they were ready, rather
than applied in two different places.

So this is just a note for future work - duplicating the patches like
this can cause annoyances down the line. No merge issues this time
(they often happen when duplicate patches then have other work done on
top of them), but things like "git bisect" now don't have quite as
black-and-white a situation etc etc.,

("git bisect" will still find _one_ of the duplicate commits if it
introduced a problem, so it's usually not a huge deal, but it can
cause the bug to be then repeated if people revert that one, but
nobody ever notices that the other commit that did the same thing is
still around and it gets back-ported to stable or whatever..)

So part of this is just in general about confusing duplicate history,
and part of it is that the duplication can then cause later confusion.

                Linus