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  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:	Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:23:59 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Adrian Bunk <>
cc:	Chris Wedgwood <>, Daniel Drake <>,
	Sergio Monteiro Basto <>,
	Daniel Ritz <>,
	Jean Delvare <>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <>,
	Brice Goglin <>,
	"John W. Linville" <>,
	Bauke Jan Douma <>,
	Tomasz Koprowski <>,,,,
	Alan Cox <>
Subject: Re: RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If life was that easy...  ;-)

No. Life _is_ that easy.

If the 2.6.16 stable tree took a patch that was questionable, and we don't 
know what the right answer to it is from the _regular_ tree, than the 
patch violated the stable tree rules in the first place and should just be 

Once people know what the right answer is (and by "know", I mean: "not 
guess") from the regular tree having been tested with it, and people 
understanding the problem, then it can be re-instated.

But if you're just guessing, and people don't _know_ the right answer, 
then just revert the whole questionable area.  The patch shouldn't have 
been there in the first place.

It really _is_ that simple.

Either it's a stable tree or it isn't. 

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists