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: <20080211211751.3e265754@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:17:51 -0800
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream  :-))

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:43:14 -0800
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 08:31:46PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:21:33 -0800
> > Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > > The maintainer will be notified.  I hope to provide some clue
> > > > as to what the conflict is with, but probably not initially.
> > > > 
> > > > I will attempt to build the tree between each merge (and a
> > > > failed build will again cause the offending tree to be dropped).
> > > 
> > > This is going to get really interesting, especially when (not if)
> > > we do more global api changes.  Look at the last round of kobject
> > > changes. That touched a lot of different places, and other trees
> > > ended up not building because of it, because I changed apis and
> > > they had added new code based on the old apis.
> > > 
> > > I think the only way to fix this is not going to just "drop the
> > > tree" like you are suggesting, but to let both people know (the
> > > person who caused the change, and the person who's tree broke
> > > after the merge), and then either add a "fixup patch" for the
> > > build like Andrew has been doing, or disabling something from the
> > > build section.
> > > 
> > 
> > in my experience, the only chance you have is doing API changes as
> > first in the set of changes, and then hoping (making) all other
> > trees use the new APIs. Any other order just turns into an
> > impossible mismash.
> 
> I agree, and that's what I do.
> 
> The problem is, the API change is still in my tree.  So, if for
> example, the IB tree goes and adds some new functionality before my
> API changes have landed, they need to use the "old" API in order for
> them to be able to test and build things on their own.  Then, when
> the -next tree merges everything together, the IB tree breaks the
> build, not my driver tree.
> 
> It's those "who goes first" type things that end up being the cause
> of a lot of Andrew's headaches I think :)
> 

this is why you need specific trees for just the API change, and these
need to EXPLICITLY go first before EVERYTHING ELSE. Yes this needs a bit of coordination,
but it's the only way.
--
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/