linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] first block round for 2.6.31

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: <20090611182657.GY11363@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:26:58 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] first block round for 2.6.31

On Thu, Jun 11 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > This is the bulk of the block changes for 2.6.31, please pull.
> > 
> >   git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git for-2.6.31
> 
> Ok, this clashed pretty badly with both the tracing tree (which obviously 
> has block tracers) and with my pull ide pull from Bartlomiej (which 
> obviously has ide driver changes).
> 
> I fixed everything up, and it _looks_ ok, including a "allyesconfig" build 
> etc. It wasn't totally trivial, though - in the sense that it's entirely 
> possible that I fixed something up incorrectly. Also, in the tracer code, 
> I kept the checks for whether something is a "pc" of "fs" request, so it 
> now looks like
> 
> 	__entry->sector    = blk_pc_request(rq) ? 0 : blk_rq_pos(rq);
> 
> and I suspect that it could just be an unconditional
> 
> 	__entry->sector    = blk_rq_pos(rq);
> 
> instead, but somebody involved with the whole block tracing thing needs to 
> check that out. 
> 
> The ide-tape.c changes also need some expert tender loving checks. I 
> neither know the code, nor have the hardware to check my fixups. Almost 
> all the changes are actually by the same person - it's almost all Tejun's 
> code (and mostly the same patches), just coming in through two different 
> trees. Not very nice.

I agree, that part is a mess. Hopefully we wont have this degree of
churn in this area again, but I do wish that we had more block consumers
based off the block tree. Having cross-dependent stuff in different
trees just gets messy quickly. Thanks for resolving it though, the IDE
code wasn't pulled in when I sent the pull request or I would've done it
myself. I usually try to make sure that it merges cleanly with your head
of tree before sending it out.

> Btw, Jens: in your tree, you've committed Tejun's changes without adding 
> your own sign-off. Not good!

That's for the patches that I pulled from his git tree. It should list
him as committer too.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/