linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] VFS

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: <20110315221818.GN22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:18:18 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] VFS - the first pile

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:32:48PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> Shortlog:
> Al Viro (45):
>       compat breakage in preadv() and pwritev()

BTW, a question about rebases: is that kind of situation worth doing
a rebase of the queue/backmerge/etc.?

This commit sits in the base of that branch, with branchpoint at Mar 10;
the same thing had been applied in mainline at Mar 13.  git merge does,
of course, handle it just fine; I guess I should've posted a pull request
back then instead of posting the patch - to be honest, I hadn't thought
about that.

What's the prefered way of dealing with such situations?  Leave as is?
Rebase at the point where the patch went into mainline?  Something else?
--
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/