linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RT: fix spin_trylock

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: <1192478816.17527.58.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:06:56 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux RT Users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RT: fix spin_trylock_irq

On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 14:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > This is the second fix for this .. The first was in this email (over a
> > month ago)
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/31/318
> 
> You're right I missed that. (I even read it). But for fixes like this, (or
> any patches that are not in the tree), you really need to resend the
> series.

In hindsight I should have resent, but I didn't .. Really it's a matter
of frustration on my part. Where I submit patches that should be
included , but they are ignored for no clear reason .. Then I submit
again, and the patches are ignored again for no clear reason..

Comparing mainline and -rt isn't very interesting since , -rt has few
patches sent in against it .. Andrew is bound to loose a patch here and
there on accident, but -rt has so few patches sent in that we shouldn't
be loosing any.

> When Ingo posts patches to LKML on CFS, if there's a little fix like this,
> he'll add that to his next queue and repost.

That's a git tree tho , so apples and oranges ..

> >
> > The above was emailed to Thomas, but I also sent you that link in IRC as
> > a link of patches to include .. I'll be happy to audit my code better,
> > but you should also audit your inclusion process better.. There have
> > been too many missed patches, and too many double and triples fixes..
> 
> There wouldn't be if we didn't have to go looking for patches on patches
> that are out of the series. If you see that a series is broken, don't
> patch against it. Resend the series!

In all fairness you asked for links to patches, and that's is what I
gave you ..

> Patches must be against upstream, unless they are more RFC (like what
> Gregory is doing). But when you want them to go upstream, they must be
> against upstream.  I don't have the time to look for little fixes that
> you've done to your own patches that have not been pulled in yet.

Not sure what your getting at.. I specifically directed you to a patch.
I don't think that means you had to look for it, all you have to do was
include it ..

Daniel

-
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/