| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:58:17 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unionfs: stop using iget() and read_inode() On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:38:04 -0500 Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu> wrote: > Andrew, the following small patch is critical to have after: > > iget-stop-unionfs-from-using-iget-and-read_inode.patch Thanks > Question: since the above patch isn't in my unionfs.git tree (not until the > whole iget series makes it to Linus), then do you prefer if I give you a > replacement patch to the above patch, or a small incremental one; either > way, you can choose to fold the above and below patches into one. Incrementals are usually preferred. But it's usually more convenient for the originator to generate a new patch, and I will almost always turn that into an incremental so that I can review what was changed. The downside to this is that nobody else will be able to see what was changed. So there are pros and cons and I'm not particularly fussed either way, really. But if a patch is large and has already had some testing and review and has been in -mm for a while then that's when wholesale replacement becomes problematic: it pretty much sets us back to square one. - 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