linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: Fix recursive Kconfig dependency

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: <AANLkTikPVqaZE8KBOCKWuwkqRpn3mHKQn+V3bUU5cW7=@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:30:15 +0100
From:	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...glemail.com>
To:	Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@....de>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	John Linville <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: Fix recursive Kconfig dependency

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@....de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 15 Dezember 2010, 21:51:04 schrieb Randy Dunlap:
>> > Hi, another patch was posted before:
>> >
>> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/970/match
>> > =acpi_wmi
> Thanks for the information.
>
>> > Your patch seems to miss TC1100_WMI section.
>>
>> Yes, it would be better to do both (all) of them the same way.
> Yeah, you're right - but as Sedat's patch is perfect (and fixes both) - so for
> Sedats's patch:
> Acked-by: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>

[ CC John Linville ]

It's a bit disappointing to see my fix is still not in
platform-drivers-x86/linux-next [1] (even it's only fixing "warnings",
9 days past).
linux-next tree is for me a very high dynamic SCM tree, I am doing
mostly daily builds, at weekend I am testing/pulling other trees
before they go into Monday's linux-next.
As far as I have fun with "my process"... I will continue.

Yesterday, I provided a patch which broke iwlwifi in linux-next
(next-20101216) and it was applied quickly into wireless-next-2.6 GIT
master and it is in next day's linux-next. OK, this was a breakage not
fixing warnings (which can be of course ignored).

Yesterday, I had a talk with resposibles of GRML project, because they
refused to apply a 6-months-old patch from IIRC Eric Biederman(n).
Debian has it already in their linux-2.6 SCM as:
       bugfix/x86/Skip-looking-for-ioapic-overrides-when-ioapics-are-not-present.patch

To be honest, I can't understand why this patch is still not upstream
(even it is a "cosmetic" fix).

So what shall I do: Cry louder, ignore, resend???

Next very unamused thingie is, sometimes you do not get a feedback, if
a patch is in WTF tree applied or not, so I am replying myself to the
threads so that people are informed that stuff is closed, please go on
to next of your problems.

As a conclusion for myself, it highly depends on the submaintainer...

- Sedat -

[1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mjg59/platform-drivers-x86.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/linux-next
--
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/