linux-kernel - Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

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: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802121328270.2920@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:36:20 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, arjan@...radead.org,
	sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> Yes, I agree, there are lots of examples of this, but the overall
> majority are reviewed by 2 people at least (or sure as hell should be,
> maybe we need to bring into existance the "reviewed-by" marking to
> ensure this.)

Well, I don't really "review" any patches that come through Andrew. What I 
do is:

 - global search-and-replace Andrew's "acked-by:" with one that is both 
   him and me (that way I make sure that I _only_ sign off on patches that 
   he has signed off on!)

 - look through all the commit *messages* (but not patches). This 
   sometimes involves also editing up grammar etc - some of those messages 
   just make me wince - but it also tends to include things like adding 
   commit one-liner information if only a git commit ID is mentioned etc.

 - and only for areas that I feel competent in, I look at the patches too.

So, to take an example, when Andrew passes on uml patches that only touch 
arch/um and include/asm-um, my sign-off does not mean *any* kind of review 
at all. It's purely a sign that it's passed the sign-off requirements 
properly.

When it comes to VM issues or other things, things are different, and I 
actually review the patch (and occasionally send it back with "nope, I'm 
not applying this"). But for stuff that comes through Andrew, that's 
probably less than a quarter of the patches. And I don't mark the ones 
I've reviewed specially in any way.

And I suspect I'm not at all alone in this. People simply have maintainers 
they trust (and _need_ to trust in order to not become a bottleneck).

			Linus
--
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/