| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20081218123601.11810b7f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:36:01 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: sfr@...b.auug.org.au, dhowells@...hat.com, trond.myklebust@....uio.no, steved@...hat.com, rwheeler@...hat.com, bfields@...ldses.org, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Pull request for FS-Cache, including NFS patches On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:24:20 -0500 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:44:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Added from today. > > > > Usual spiel: all patches in that branch must have been > > posted to a relevant mailing list > > reviewed > > unit tested > > destined for the next merge window (or the current release) > > *before* they are included. > > I don't think we want fscache for .29 yet. I'd rather let the > credential code settle for one release, and have more time for actually > reviewing it properly and have it 100% ready for .30. > I don't believe that it has yet been convincingly demonstrated that we want to merge it at all. It's a huuuuuuuuge lump of new code, so it really needs to provide decent value. Can we revisit this? Yet again? What do we get from all 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists