linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/90] Post 2.6.21 OMAP update

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: <20070406071858.GC6730@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:18:58 +0100
From:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/90] Post 2.6.21 OMAP update

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:27:13PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Hmm, yeah I'll see if I could group them a bit. The problem there
> > is that the patch series contains multiple rounds of "add and fix"
> > cycles. Pretty much all the non-dependant fixes have already been
> > applied, BTW.
> 
> Bear in mind that it doesn't work now, so merging some stuff and being in
> a "more merged but still not yet a tree to build OMAP from" is not a
> regression or a problem.
> 
> Going back some time the PA-RISC merge occurred over several months until
> one day it was all there.

I think Tony's problem is the volume of changes though - I think it is
fair to say that in 2.6.18 it was fully merged and working.

Since then, for one reason or another the merge windows got missed (ISTR
it was triggered due to me not being able to devote the full 14 days to
kernel work during the 2.6.19 merge window due to going on holiday) which
has resulted in subsequent merge windows being missed, and therefore the
number of changes increasing and the problem Tony's now in.

In that respect, if it no longer "work"s now, it's technically a
regression.

Clearly the real solution is for rmk never to go on holiday during a
merge window, but I don't personally find that acceptable.  Or maybe
human cloning, but I'm sure there's people here who think that one rmk
is enough. ;)

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
-
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/