linux-kernel - Re: Elaboration on "Equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree"

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

Date:	Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:55:34 -0800 (PST)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
cc:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: Elaboration on "Equivalent fix must already exist in Linus'
 tree"

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Stefan Richter
> <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Stefan Richter
>>> <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>> OK small silly example is convincing distributions it may be a good
>>>>> idea to carry linux-next kernel packages as options to users to
>>>>> hopefully down the road reduce the delta between what they carry and
>>>>> what is actually upstream.
>>>> Distros would do their users a bigger favour if [...]
>>>
>>> I don't think I was very clear in what I meant about "carrying
>>> linux-next kernel packages as an option". What I meant was carrying it
>>> just as an option for those users who want to test bleeding edge
>>> without compiling their own linux-next, _not_ to merge linux-next
>>> things into their own default kernel release and shove it down users
>>> throats.
>>
>> Sorry, I meant "bigger favour" relative to carrying an own delta of
>> considerable size.
>>
>> Packaging linux-next would be fine if the workload isn't a problem for
>> the packager.  As pointed out elsewhere, there are caveats with
>> linux-next (e.g. a functionality which was in it yesterday could be gone
>> today because of a merge issue), but that's the nature of bleeding edge
>> of course.
>
> Sure, understood. That's all I meant really.
>
> My argument here I guess is that the reasons used to support the
> "equivalent fix" policy for patches upstream makes it apparent why
> linux-next is so important and my hope would be to get it more
> exposure by having distributions let users test it (as an option to go
> with bleeding edge) and this in turn help stabilize code in our next
> release.

what does "equivalent fix" in the linus tree have to do with -next?

patches don't go always go through -next to get to linus, things that are 
in -next don't nessasarily _ever_ get to linus.

you are mixing issues here.

David Lang