linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 -mm] fault-injection: safer defaults, trivial optimization, cleanup

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: <1164754245.2894.144.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:50:45 -0800
From:	Don Mullis <dwm@...r.net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Akinobu Mita <mita@...aclelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 -mm] fault-injection: safer defaults, trivial
	optimization, cleanup

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:37 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> We'd prefer one-patch-per-concept, please. This all sounds like about
> six patches.

Understood.

> We _could_ merge this patch as-is, but it means that when this stuff
> finally hits mainline it would go in as a nice sequence of logical patches,
> followed by a random thing which is splattered all over all the preceding
> patches.

Does this argue for a respin of the original patches, folding in
content from this one, rather than splitting it into an additional six to
be appended to the series?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/