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  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]
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:01:57 +0100
From:	Stefan Richter <>
To:	Theodore Tso <>
CC:	"Luck, Tony" <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	LKML <>,
	Nicolas Pitre <>,
	Stephen Rothwell <>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <>,
	Jeff Garzik <>,
	Robert Richter <>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <>,
	Jean Delvare <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 09:53:41PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> If the "rewind" is simply to add "signed-off-by" notations, update
>> commit comments (or code comments) ... then it does seem useful to
>> keep the commit chain anchored to the original commit, as the testing
>> that has been done is all still valid.
>> But as soon as you talk about fixing bugs ... then you ought to
>> just do a "rebase".  The code you are adding has changed, so it is
>> incorrect to preserve the illusion that these changes have had
>> extensive testing against the old commit base.  The code has changed,
>> so the testing clock gets reset to zero.
> I don't think anyone should (or does?) use the base version of a patch
> series as an indication of how much testing a patch series has
> received.  It doesn't make much sense.

FWIW, I agree to the above.  But the below...

> Suppose I update the 40th patch of a 50th patch series to add check
> for kmalloc() returning NULL that had been inadvertently left out, or
> some other error checking is added.  Or suppose I add a new tracepoint
> definition to a 50 patch series.

...are bad examples in the context of linux-next, IMO.  A missing
allocation failure check or a missing tracepoint don't break
bisectability.  So why discard this history?  (It was already published
in a release preview.)

> Sorry, I'm not going to rewind the
> entire patch series because someone thinks the base version of the
> patch series somehow is a magic "test clock" indicator....

Indeed.  Not even the commit date of individual patches says something
about how extensive they were tested.  Besides, testers might never have
tested that particular head; it's more likely that they ran a merge
result which was never published anywhere, or they tested a patch
stand-alone on top of whatever kernel they happened to have at hand
(e.g. a distro kernel) when the patch author asked them to test some fix
or feature.
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= =-=- ==-=-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists