linux-kernel - Re: [tip:timers/core] timekeeping: Increase granularity of read_persistent

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]

Message-ID: <19090.1800.521794.839576@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:20:40 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, dwalker@...o99.com,
	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	johnstul@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/core] timekeeping: Increase granularity of
	read_persistent_clock()

Ingo Molnar writes:

> Do you ask Linus to rebase the upstream kernel as well, if the 
> powerpc or x86 build happens to break? There's more than a dozen 
> such cases per development cycle triggering on my tests alone. If 
> not, why not?

I see you pulling commits out of the tip tree quite often, when they
have testing failures of various kinds.  I presume that, like other
maintainers, you have some branches that you try hard not to rebase
and other testing branches that are quite volatile and get
reconstructed frequently (though I don't know what branch names you
use for them).

I presumed that you wouldn't have put a commit that hadn't even passed
basic build testing into one of your non-rebasing branches.  That's
why I assumed you could fold the fix into the original patch without
difficulty.

> The thing is, we'll probably redo this portion of the timer tree as 
> i found other problems in testing, but generally the disadvantages 
> of a build breakage with a very small non-bisectability window has 
> to be weighed against the disadvantages of a rebase (which are 
> significant).
> 
> The equation does not automatically flip in favor of a rebase as you 
> seem to suggest - in fact it generally goes _against_ a rebase.

In a stable, non-rebasing branch, sure.  But putting untested patches
into such a branch would be a bit silly, so I assumed you hadn't done
that. :)

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/