linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fixes for 2.6.32-rc6

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 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:	Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:31:47 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fixes for 2.6.32-rc6


* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I want the cleanup because I think that the code sucks from a "future 
> > proofing" and readability standpoint, but I really don't mind one way or 
> > the other whether you want to finally do that one "return 1" correctly for 
> > one commit, only to then fix it to not do that three-way test of a single 
> > function in the next one.
> > 
> > So whatever works - as long as the end result both looks sane and doesn't 
> > have the bug we clearly have now.
> 
> I was mostly worrying about introducing unrelated bug while changing. 
> Anyways, one patch it is.  I'll route it through tip as suggested by 
> Ingo in a few hours.

Btw., i'd suggest you keep it in your percpu tree as usual and send it 
to Linus directly - i offered testing for the cleanup patch (and can 
pull your patch for such a purpose), it doesnt 'have' to go via -tip.

	Ingo
--
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/