linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the lost-spurious-irq tree with the tip tree

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: <4CAACBDA.6090308@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:55:22 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the lost-spurious-irq tree with the
 tip tree

Hello, Ingo.

On 10/05/2010 08:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
>>> I think I fixed it all up (see below).  I can carry this fix (or a 
>>> better one) as necessary.
>>
>> Can you please drop lost-spurious-irq for now?  It needs to be 
>> reimplemented.  I'll send a merge request again when it's ready.
> 
> Please send irq merge requests to Thomas instead and wait for those 
> genirq bits to show up upstream. (You did so in the past and the review 
> process was ongoing AFAICS)
> 
> Otherwise we would be dilluting linux-next testing with random side 
> effects from a tree that wasnt yet (in that form) scheduled to go 
> upstream by its respective maintainer at that time.
> 
> We were lucky that this showed up as merge complications - what if 
> instead it merged 'fine' on the textual and build/boot level but 
> mis-merged on the functional level in subtle ways? Thomas would be 
> sending something to Linus that was never really tested in linux-next in 
> that form, caused problems upstream, and Linus would be rightfully upset 
> about the situation.
> 
> Stephen, you need to enforce such things ...

I think Stephen had done enough.  At the time, I wasn't sure which
tree it was going to go through and it took some time before Thomas
responded, so I was intending to push it through separately.  I should
have retracted the tree right after it was determined to be
reimplemented but forgot.  That's my mistake not Stephen's.  Sorry
about that.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/