| 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: <6599ad830908192149o4dc4d4a2p32fbce972a949d0e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:49:51 -0700 From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, bblum@...rew.cmu.edu, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Revert commit 8827c288feb7810185aa7c2e37537202fc709869 On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Matt Helsley<matthltc@...ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 08:13:59PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Li Zefan<lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote: >> > >> > As you said, the 2 patches differ just in using different var/func >> > names, so rebasing shouldn't be hard but maybe a bit boring. >> > >> >> Yes - it's a fair amount of work for no real gain. > > So this revert won't introduce a regression for any potential tests? > Yes, there would be a two-commit window where a hypothetical test that tests for concurrent opens of "tasks" files from different pid namespaces would fail. If that was really a big deal, then it wouldn't be too hard to fold the first three patches in this series down into one, but that would reduce the clarity of the commit history. Paul -- 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