linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fixes for 2.6.31-rc8

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: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0909051422130.3414@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 5 Sep 2009 14:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fixes for 2.6.31-rc8



On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> Ummm... one question.  The above tree is on top of the previous
> for-linus fixes tree.  It pulls in to the current #master alright but
> it would still be a merge instead of a fast-forward.  Would it be
> better to prep fixes tree on top of the current #master so that it
> results in fast-forward?  If that's the case, please let me know or
> just cherry pick the top commit.

No, I actually prefer people to avoid rebasing unless they have some real 
reason for it. My pulls almost always end up being merges anyway, since I 
pull from several people, so even if you were to have rebased, it would 
_not_ have been a fast-forward for me, since I'd in the meantime have 
pulled from others anyway.

			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/