linux-kernel - Re: {painfullyBISECTED} Please revert f25c80a4b2: arch/um/drivers: remove duplicate structure field initialization

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <loom.20110126T170748-626@post.gmane.org>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:32:33 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Emil Langrock <emil.langrock@....de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: {painfullyBISECTED} Please revert f25c80a4b2: arch/um/drivers: remove duplicate structure field initialization

Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> linux-foundation.org> writes:

> The real problem is that maintainers often pick random - and not at
> all stable - points for their development to begin with. They just
> pick some random "this is where Linus -git tree is today", and do
> their development on top of that. THAT is the problem - they are
> unaware that there's some nasty bug in that version.
> 
> It's actually made worse by rebasing. A lot of people end up rebasing
> on top of such a random kernel (again, just because it's the 'most
> recent'). It's very annoying.
> 
> Not to mention that rebasing easily results in bugs of its own, when
> you do hit merge conflicts or double-apply something that already got
> applied (and wasn't seen as a duplicate and merged away automatically,
> because the code had been further modified since). We had that in the
> DVB pull request just yesterday.
> 
> > So in short this is a call for, possibly, cleaner History in main Kernel.
> > Please remind me why re-writing history is a bad thing.
> 
> Rebasing doesn't result in cleaner history. It just results in
> _incorrect_ history that looks simpler.
> 
> To get cleaner history, people should try to keep their tree clean.
> Not add random patches to random branches, and not start random
> branches at random points in time that aren't necessarily stable.

I understand what you want to say, but I don't see how you define stable points. 
Maybe you mean that a stable point is a non-rc release of Linux. This of course 
sounds like a good idea when you start a complete new development without any 
dependencies, but think about following events (ordered by time of event):

 * v2.6.37 was released
 * foo starts to code the feature bar
 * foo asks a subtree maintainer to merge his stuff (subtree maintainer doesn't 
merge it because 2.6.38-rc1 wasn't released yet)
 * v2.6.38-rc1 was released
 * subtree maintainer merges the commit because we need more bar in Linux
 * v2.6.38 was released
 * subtree maintainer asks you to merge his tree with the cool bar feature
 * foo wants to extent the bar feature to superbar and get it in 2.6.40
 * v2.6.39-rc1 gets released with the cool bar feature
 * v2.6.39 gets released with the final and bugfixed bar feature
 * (your merge window - time were foo will not be able to get new patches to the 
subtree maintainer for v2.6.40-rc1)
 * v2.6.40-rc1 gets released

Even if this is a relative small example and the usual problem is more complex - 
what starting point should be used for his superbar feature? My obvious answer 
would be 2.6.39-rc1 (but is it really a stable starting point?)

Kind regards,
Emil Langrock

--
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/