linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] writeback: get rid of generic_sync_sb

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: <20090908110536.GV18599@kernel.dk>
Date:	Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:05:36 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] writeback: get rid of generic_sync_sb_inodes()
	export

On Tue, Sep 08 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On 09/08/2009 01:57 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> But well, if you do not want to carry my patch, then I'll have to
>>> re-base my tree later, fix stuff, and send a pull request. I mean,
>>> your stuff will for sure be merged first, because I send pull requests
>>> late, just because UBIFS is a minor thing in the kernel.
>>
>> You don't have to rebase, if my work is merged first then you just merge
>> Linus' tree into yours and fixup the conflict before asking Linus to
>> pull.
>
> I thought Linus asked to avoid merge commits in pull requests at some
> point, no? So I thought that I'd re-base then, which Linus also
> dislikes :-)

Pointless merges are discouraged, but this one isn't pointless since it
resolves a conflict. If you rebase, Linus will flame your ass to a
crisp, I know from personal experience :-)

>> It's a trivial conflict, I don't understand what the fuzz is about.
>
> Well, I was just thinking how to avoid merge commits. But I guess I can
> do what you suggest.

Just don't worry about it, things are fine as-is. When the conflict
happens with the mainline tree, fix it up. If it was a more involved
depdency chain, we could do something more about it. But for this, I'd
say it's a lot more work to attempt to "fix" something that is a 10s
merge issue at pull time.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/