linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2

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: <1186501124.3414.32.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:38:44 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > The initial bsg submit went via the block git tree ... which I believe
> > you have in -mm.  We only started taking the updates via the scsi tree
> 
> Seven hours before you posted this, in 
> <20070807001429.f8cb3b22.akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew already 
> noted it was not in -mm.
> 
> A trivial examination of the broken-out mm patches backs up the absence 
>   of Jens' block tree, too.
> 
> So let's put this myth / bad assumption to rest, shall we?

Sorry ... I just assumed from the fact that it had been in the block git
tree for six months that it was also in -mm.

> > Yes ... particularly in large trees like SCSI, there's the maintainer
> > "bugger if I don't mail it out now I don't get it in for another three
> > months" factor.
> 
> That factor always exists.  It's not confined to SCSI or large trees. 
> It's basic the nature of the merge window.  Nothing new or shocking here.
> 
> 
> > bsg had actually been sitting in the block tree since 2.6.21, so it had
> > followed the delayed merge rule ... it just seems that it didn't get
> > enough integration testing in that six months.  This is what I consider
> 
> It didn't get integration testing, at least in part, because it did not 
> hit our official pre-release tree.  Quoth Andrew:
> > I pulled git-scsi-misc on July 19 and there was no bsg code in there at
> > all.  I pulled again on July 20 and all the bsg code was in mainline.
> 
> 
> 
> > I don't disagree; my point is that bsg did follow this rule (in fact it
> 
> Evidence says otherwise.

It followed the rule of trying to stabilise outside mainline ... it just
didn't get sufficient integration testing.

> > I wouldn't call bsg half baked ... it was very carefully matured.  There
> > were just a few integration issues.
> 
> I wouldn't call bsg carefully matured, if in addition to not really 
> gracing -mm with its presence, the userland API structure is still 
> getting changes on July 29, 2007 (0c6a89ba640d28e1dcd7fd1a217d2cfb92ae4953).

This would be the ABI change I talked about in the previous emails.

So would this problem have been fixed simply by adding the missing block
tree to -mm?

James


-
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/