linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 2.6.35

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: <AANLkTilRCWlM5ZklGOb26Xj9XAmBdY1S702WyQGuaK_l@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:00:02 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 2.6.35

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> The others all fix oopsen or big problems, and I think fixing warnings
> helps avoid false negatives as others look for real problems?
>
> I'm happy to rebase out the 3 non-criticals.

There seems to be more than three non-criticals. There's the warning
fixes, the "unused variables" thing, the "memdup_user()" thing, a
couple of unnecessary NULL checks removed etc. On the whole, I do not
get the feeling that the pull request was actively trying to be
minimal, and that's what I really want to see.

                  Linus
--
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/