linux-kernel - Re: [patch 02/19] x86: Use kbuild.h

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080416121550.b31f828c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:15:50 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, apw@...dowen.org, sam@...nborg.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 02/19] x86: Use kbuild.h

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > * Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Drop the macro definitions in asm-offsets_*.c and use kbuild.h
> > > 
> > > thanks Christoph, applied.
> > 
> > the dependency i missed was the existence of include/linux/kbuild.h ;-) 
> > Anyway:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
> Yes sorry this is dependent on other patches merged by Andrew. This is the 
> classic case of arch changes that depend on core changes.

Yeah, I tricked a few people that way yesterday ;)

For this series I cc'ed 30-odd people on the core patch
(add-kbuildh-that-contains-common-definitions-for-kbuild-users.patch) and
then cc'ed them individually on the dependent patch (eg,
sparc-use-kbuildh-instead-of-defining-macros-in-asm-offsetsc.patch).  So
hopefully it was somewhat obvious what was going on.

In the case of *-use-get-put_unaligned_-helpers.patch it was more obscure
because the core patch
(kernel-add-common-infrastructure-for-unaligned-access.patch) came in a lot
earlier so nobody got to see it.  That tricked 'em.

Perhaps I should put "depends on -mm's
kernel-add-common-infrastructure-for-unaligned-access.patch" in the
changelog.  Problem is that I'd never remember to take that out before
sending the patch onwards.

I guess I could add "this depends on a patch which is only in -mm" into
that email somehow.

hm.  Oh well, it doesn't happen very often.

Related:

I'm now sitting on things like:

kernel-add-common-infrastructure-for-unaligned-access.patch
...
input-use-get_unaligned_-helpers.patch

Strictly and formally, the merge process for these is

a) I send kernel-add-common-infrastructure-for-unaligned-access.patch to
Linus.

b) He merges it

c) I send input-use-get_unaligned_-helpers.patch to Dmitry

d) He merges it

e) He sends input-use-get_unaligned_-helpers.patch to Linus

f) Linus merges it.

This is a lot of fuss and there's a non-zero chance that we'll miss the
merge window.  So I like people to send along acked-by's for this sort of
thing so I can scoot them along to Linus straight away.

--
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/