linux-kernel - Re: [git patches] net driver fixes

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: <20080220.145756.63719432.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:57:56 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	bfields@...ldses.org
Cc:	jeff@...zik.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:25:30 -0500

> The advantages include earlier warning of merge problems, and avoidance
> of duplicate commits--if Jeff's done work that depends on patches that
> already upstream, then he either does that work against upstream, or
> includes backported patches in the branch he asks you to pull, and you
> end up with both the original and the backported patch.  Which isn't the
> end of the world, but the resulting history seems messier than
> necessary.
> 
> Or I guess you could both wait to do this merge until you're ready to
> pull in Linus's latest?

I do a test pull and build of net-2.6 into Linus's current tree
before I send Linus a pull request.

If any non-trivial merges are necessary, which hasn't happened yet at
all, I would then do a merge into my net-2.6 tree and resolve the
conflicts.

There is no reason for someone downstream of net-2.6 to do this.

--
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/