linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] x86 updates for v2.6.30, final bits

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] x86 updates for v2.6.30, final bits

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> [ The sched.c bit is an odd one out: due to previous cpumask changes 
>   it developed a dependency/conflict on the cpumask tree which 
>   depended on the x86 tree. Should i have started a separate branch 
>   for it? I didnt want to merge the x86 tree into the scheduler 
>   tree. We had really excessive dependencies and cross-merges in
>   this cycle around the x86 tree and i very much hope this is an
>   exception

The problem is that you've been hoping for this "exception" for the last 
three kernel releases. 

The details differ, but you do seem to mix things up too much. I'm not at 
all happy. I think quality control is slipping, because there's this 
absolutely _humongous_ amount of crap that gets in through you. You seem 
to have a hard time saying "no".

And yes, you boot-test things pretty well, but I really wish you had more 
focus. This "everything under the sun" thing is very annoying, and I think 
you are too damn eager to merge the random new feature of the day.

So instead of "hoping", how about you look at making sure it really _does_ 
become an exception. And that really fundamentally means that it can't 
happen every release.

How about trying one release to just say "no" if you start seeing all 
these kinds of things. We don't allow non-x86 architectures to just tie 
things together this way. The fact that you have the same tree seems to 
just encourage badness by making it "easier" to just mix things up.

		Linus
--
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/