linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes

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: <4B181B67.5080503@garzik.org>
Date:	Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:11:19 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
CC:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes

On 12/03/2009 02:45 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thursday 03 December 2009 06:53:59 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> On 12/03/2009 07:39 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 09:07:41 am Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>> The merge window is upon us, which by strict rules means that anything
>>>> not already in libata-dev.git#upstream needs to wait until 2.6.34.
>>>>
>>>> However, bug fixes and the like should definitely be in 2.6.33.
>>>> ->init_host is definitely 2.6.34 material.  Some of the other stuff
>>>> could go either way.
>>
>>> If you would like to apply some of my patches to 2.6.33 you are more than
>>> welcome to do it.  I can even prepare separate git tree with specific changes
>>> to make it easier for you once you tell me which changes you would like to
>>> see in it.
>>
>> OK, great.
>>
>> Can you prepare a patchset containing only fixes?  Comment-only changes
>> are acceptable too.  Trivial changes too, if they are extremely trivial :)
>>
>> Include nothing that adds features, removes or unifies drivers, etc.
>
> Since this is pretty high-level description and some changes fall into
> many categories at once (i.e. addition of proper PCI Power Management
> handling could be considered both as a fix and as a feature) I prepared
> a rather conservative set of changes (which means that unfortunately
> it misses many enhancements available in my tree):
>
>> Please do it in standard kernel submit form, which is either
>> (a) repost the patches (yes, again) being submitted for 2.6.33, or
>> (b) a standard git pull request, which includes shortlog, diffstat, and
>> all-in-one diff.
>
> Thank you for the detailed explanation of the standard kernel submit
> form (I wonder how would I know this otherwise :) but the thing is that
> at the current moment I'm not submitting anything to the upstream.

Ok, that explains my confusion, then.  I had thought you intended to get 
this stuff upstream, and into users' hands.


> That's it.  While this may sound strange to some people it turns out
> that in practice it is much less hassle for me personally to keep some
> of trees outside of the (sometimes greatly overrated) upstream.
>
> If knowing the above you still would like to include the aforementioned
> set of changes in your libata-dev tree they are at kernel.org now.

I will go through this batch and cherry-pick.  The build fix is already 
in my tree.  Existing kernel practice (and previous comments) indicate 
that lists of known issues do not belong in Kconfig.  Will take a look 
at the other stuff...

Thanks,

	Jeff



--
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/