linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the namespace tree with Linus' tree

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]

Date:	Mon, 16 May 2011 14:44:05 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the namespace tree with Linus' tree

Hi Matt,

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:00:15 -0400 Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know what the best way to avoid this is. Sometimes (and
> _sometimes_ is the problem) new syscalls are added through another
> tree. Other times, they're added to only x86 and amd64 or something
> and leave us to find out later.
> 
> So, should all syscall additions go through the respective arch trees,
> or should syscall additions make sure to include all architectures?

Any and all of the above should be fine.  Mostly, the "only add x86"
model is followed and the other arches catch up later.

Conflicts like these are easy to handle and Linus does not mind fixing
them up as they occur, so for really simple syscalls, adding them to all
architectures should be fine.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped