linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure

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: <1244799786.6691.1133.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:43:06 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:33 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> We should at least -try- to follow the
> process we've defined, don't you think ?

So you're saying -next should include whole new subsystems even though
its not clear they will be merged?

That'll invariably create the opposite case where a tree doesn't get
pulled and breaks bits due to its absence.

-next does a great job of sorting the existing subsystem trees, but I
don't think its Stephens job to decide if things will get merged.

Therefore when things are in limbo (there was no definite ACK from Linus
on perf counters) both inclusion and exclusion from -next can lead to
trouble.


--
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/