linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] SLAB changes for v2.6.38

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: <AANLkTi=pvz-ou3_DK0dUSRYCARkwM_X9x7Xpnapjw_Ke@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:41:17 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	cl@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SLAB changes for v2.6.38

Hi Linus,

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> A cherry-pick really is nothing but "apply the same patch as a
> different commit".
>
> So there is no way to say "this is already there" - because it really
> isn't. It's a totally different thing. In fact, it would be very wrong
> to filter them out, both from a fundamental design standpoint, but
> also from a usability/reliability standpoint: cherry-picks are by no
> means guaranteed to be identical to the source - like any "re-apply
> the patch in another place" model, the end result is not at all
> guaranteed to be semantically identical simply due to different bases:
> the patches may not even be identical, and even if they are, the
> results of the code may depend on what else is going on.
>
> So don't think of cherry-picks as "the same commit". It's not, and it
> never will be. It's a totally separate commit, they just share some
> superficial commonalities.

OK, I did not know that. Thanks for the explanation!

Is cherry pick still sane from maintainer workflow point of view? I
used to do it the other way - merge bug fixes to an "urgent branch"
and then merge that to the "next branch". I changed my workflow to
apply the patches always to the "next branch" first and only cherry
pick to the "urgent branch" if necessary.

Am I doing it wrong?

                        Pekka
--
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/