linux-kernel - ceph code review

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0912011648590.5806@cobra.newdream.net>
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:27:23 -0800 (PST)
From:	Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yehuda@...dream.net
Subject: ceph code review

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The code looks reasonable to me.  Unless others emit convincing
> squeaks, please ask Stephen to include your git tree into linux-next
> sometime within the next month, then send Linus a pull request for
> 2.6.33.

The code has seen 70 odd patches since then.  Mostly small fixes and 
cleanups, and a handful of larger changes.  Should these see the light of 
LKML before I send a pull request of Linus?  (So far they've just gone out 
to the ceph commit list.) I don't want to spam everyone with a huge series 
fixing up as yet unmerged code, but I'm not sure that review on the ceph 
lists is sufficient, given the frequency with which I see fs series on 
LKML...

What are the best practices here?

sage
--
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/