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:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:39:13 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Greg KH <>
Cc:	James Bottomley <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Chris Wright <>,, Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] new -stable tag variant, Git workflow question

* Greg KH <> wrote:

> > By the looks of the above it's only a few commits, or is it the 
> > entire branch?
> I'm thinking the commit would be the merge, right Ingo?  So it would 
> just be a single commit that has the marker in it.


This is really a special case, a small variation of the commit eae0c9d 
-stable tagging scheme i outlined in the first mail.

When i merge */urgent branches into the for-linus branch in the merge 
window, i cannot change the commits anymore (it would amount to a 
rebase), but i have the opportunity to modify the merge commit message 
itself. (which is typically a regular merge commit and does not carry 
any -stable actionable change itself.)

I already annotate merge commits today - for example:

 | commit 43315956509ca6913764861ac7dec128b91eb1ec
 | Merge: 9bf4e7f 6beba7a
 | Author: Ingo Molnar <>
 | Date:   Fri Oct 23 08:23:20 2009 +0200
 |     Merge branch 'perf/core' into perf/probes
 |     Conflicts:
 |         tools/perf/Makefile
 |     Merge reason:
 |      - fix the conflict
 |      - pick up the pr_*() infrastructure to queue up dependent patch
 |     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <>

Note how i already put a SOB line into the merge commit - i treat every 
merge as something that 'had to be done' so they are never arbitrary and 
always carry real information.

So my idea was to potentially use the extended -stable notification 
scheme in certain merge commits too. Here's a mockup merge commit log:

    Merge branch 'sched/urgent' into sched/core
    Merge reason:
     - resolve the conflict
     - queue up urgent fixes for the next merge window

    Cc: <> # .32.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for an idle shared cache
    Cc: <> # .32.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
    Cc: <> # .32.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
    Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <>

Note that the merge commit itself carries no action for -stable: there's 
no "Cc: <>" line - only 'pointer' lines in the form 

    Cc: <> # .32.x: sha1: title

But ... if you or Linus dislikes this direction of tagging for some 
reason i can still do the manual approach as well. It seemed useful to 
me though and it would be a natural portion of my workflow.

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