linux-kernel - Re: Resolved merge conflicts in next-creds

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: <20080812093624.de7d4ad8.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:36:24 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Steve French <sfrench@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Resolved merge conflicts in next-creds

Hi James, David,

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:53:40 +1000 (EST) James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
>
> We have tried this approach thus far without success, although perhaps now 
> the code has been in linux-next and you've come to the same conclusion, we 
> could try again.
> 
> David, if you want to make a minimal API-only patch set, I'll can stage it 
> and push to Linus.

The important thing (and what is different in what I have proposed) is
that what you are asking Linus to take here has zero impact (i.e. you just
add a header file that noone uses and whose contents are clearly noops)
and then it is very obvious that when people start to use it, the changes
really cannot introduce a regression.

Of course, Linus has to be convinced that the long term API change is
sensible as well.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped