linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL for 38-rc3] target updates for v4.0.0-rc7

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: <1295922411.15425.126.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:26:51 -0600
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
To:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL for 38-rc3]  target updates for v4.0.0-rc7

On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 17:55 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 19:38 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > Over the list, please, not in a git tree.  What I need is for others to
> > review them ... and appearing on the list best encourages that.
> > 
> 
> Yes, but to clarify one item.   All of these patches in for-38-rc3 and
> for-jejb branches have already been sent out to linux-scsi incrementally
> when they where committed into LIO upstream code.  Are you asking that
> the entire patch series be re-sent to linux-scsi against .38-rc2..?

What I want is for you to tidy them up, make changelogs intelligible,
sanity  check them (like merge patches for people who submit one patch
per file), run checkpatch, make sure series compiles and integration
test them before rolling them up in a batch and sending them on (at an
interval of about one or two batches per merge window) ... in essence,
what a maintainer does.

James

> > It's also better to use something more stable as the base, like linus
> > head or scsi-misc as the base.  The postmerge tree is my most volatile
> > tree (fairly constantly rebasing as I try to get the merge fixes
> > right) ... and it's currently defunct until another merge clash appears.
> > 
> > By way of demonstration, try pulling your current postmerge tree into
> > linus head and see what happens (the resulting conflicts are because of
> > the rebases).
> 
> Yes sorry, I should have been more specific here wrt to my
> scsi-post-merge-2.6.git branches:
> 
> *) for-38-rc3: rebased to linus .38-rc2 tag
> 
> *) for-jejb: based on jejb scsi-post-merge-2.6.git/master @ .37-FINAL
> from commit 7d2087a1820b (initial LIO target core v4.0.0-rc6 commit)
> 
> Both are now in sync with the upstream LIO tree v4.0.0-rc7 bugfixes, and
> I have been keeping 'for-jejb' as convience for you against your initial
> target merge.
> 
> --nab
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


--
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/