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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4AA2DBD0.1000106@kernel.org>
Date:	Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:44:48 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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

Hello, Linus.

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

Alright, thanks for the explanation.  Will do as advised.

-- 
tejun
--
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/