linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next

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: <20091026052118.GB13941@mit.edu>
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:21:18 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next

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.

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.  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....

      	     	     	  	      	     - Ted
--
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/