| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20061128160557.4701c6a6.akpm@osdl.org> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:05:57 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> To: Don Mullis <dwm@...r.net> 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, 28 Nov 2006 14:50:45 -0800 Don Mullis <dwm@...r.net> wrote: > 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? If the fixes are one-patch-per-concept, and if the original patch series is one-patch-per-concept (it is) then I can usually insert the fixups in the right place, later fold each into its appropriate base patch and everything lands in git squeaky-clean. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists