linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-mm1

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: <3289.1202240894@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:48:14 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-mm1

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:01:24 PST, Arjan van de Ven said:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:16:34 PST, Andrew Morton said:
> >> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24/2.6.24-mm1/
> > 
> > Builds, boots, mostly seems to run for limited testing.
> > 
> > One note - the following commit(s) (and related CPA reworking) broke the NVidia
> > binary driver (which is OK, I can fix *that* part).  But can somebody explain
> > if this should have seen a trip through the -mm tree before it hit mainstream?
> > I didn't see these in 24-rc8-mm1:
> 
> well that depends on which -mm you tried; I'm sure the mm kernel of the day had it for a while.

I looked around on www.kernel.org, and I found this directory:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/mm/ but the most recent is:

broken-out-2007-11-20-01-45.tar.bz2      20-Nov-2007 09:45  3.4M

24-rc8-mm1 came out on Jan 17, only a week before 2.6.24 came out and the
merge window opened.  Since this stuff wasn't in there in rc8-mm1, but
did go into Linus's tree on Jan 30, it had at best 2 weeks for testing by
whoever pulled the git-x86 tree in that timespan...

> I don't think it's a realistic expectation to delay every bugfix and arch patch until Andrew
> gets around to releasing an -mm, not do I see the point of that, what would have been different?

A bugfix?

commit 9af993a92623e022c176459fa6607a564b9a7eaf
Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date:   Wed Jan 30 13:34:09 2008 +0100

    x86: make ioremap() UC by default

    Yes! A mere 120 c_p_a() fixing and rewriting patches later,
    we are now confident that we can enable UC by default for
    ioremap(), on x86 too.

That's one hell of a patch series for a "bugfix" that goes straight-to-mainline.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped