linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: current pending merge fix patches

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: <20100301090130.GA13880@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:01:30 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	J??rn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: current pending merge fix patches


* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:10:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > > This could also be taken as a reminder to the respective maintiners that 
> > > they may want to do a merge of your tree before asking you to pull theirs.
> > 
> > I dont think that's generally correct for trivial conflicts: it's better if 
> > Linus does the merge of a tree that is based in some stable tree.
> 
> In general I agree.  I have singled out these conflict resolutions because 
> they involve either files not obvious from the conflicts (newly introduced 
> or chunks of code moved between files), or chunks of code that are 
> introduced in one tree but need to be modified after the otheris merged.  So 
> in that sense they are a heads up to Linus because they are only found after 
> you do the merge and then get a build failure (if you do the right builds).
> 
> So they can be resolved by Linus after he merges the second tree or by the 
> original maintainer of one of the trees merging/cherrypicking (part of) the 
> other tree or waiting for Linus to merge the other tree and then do a merge 
> with Linus' tree.

Conflict reminders are certainly useful - even for trivial commits.

My comments mostly related to the part of your suggestion that subsystem 
maintainers may merge in Linus's tree before they send their pull request to 
Linus - which i dont agree with in the general case, for the aforementioned 
reasons.

Thanks,

	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/