linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40

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]

Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 11:26:21 +0400
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40

On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 00:03 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> 
> > I agree with Linus's notion in this thread though, a core kernel change should 
> > generally not worry about hooking up rare-arch system calls (concentrate on the 
> > architectures that get tested most) - those are better enabled gradually 
> > anyway.
> 
> The way I read it he was complaining about my having parisc bits and
> asking for my branch to be merged before the parisc bits had been
> merged.  Which I credit as a fair complaint.  If I am going to depend on
> other peoples trees I should wait.
> 
> At the same time when I am busy looking for every possible source of
> trouble and putting code into net-next to detect pending conflicts,
> and when maintainers complain when I ask for review that my patches
> conflict with their patches.  Being a contentious developer I am
> inclined to do something.

Right ... and the problem is that someone has to care, because the
conflict will show up in linux-next.  I think Stephen Rothwell would
appreciate us making his life easier rather than leaving it to him to
sort out the problems.

> Now that the reality has sunk in that it means waiting for other peoples
> code to be merged before I request for my changes to be merged I don't
> think I will structure a tree that way again while I remember.

Right.   This is quite a common occurrence in SCSI (mostly changes
entangled with block or libata).  If you don't feel comfortable running
a postmerge tree, just send me the bits and I'll do it (after all it
works either way around: I can pull in the syscalls and depend on your
tree rather than vice versa).

James


--
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/