linux-kernel - RE: next-200110804 ARM build break (cpuidle_call

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:	Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:44:15 -0700
From:	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: next-200110804 ARM build break (cpuidle_call_idle)

> > The last three commits in the idle tree that you took from Len were in
> > linux-next until April 15 and then disappeared until yesterday.  The last
> > of these was broken back then and has been committed exactly the same now
> > and still breaks arm and sh.
> >
> > I have reverted that commit from your tree for today ...
> 
> Len, this is *exactly* why I com plained about the git trees you pushed to me.

Ugh, 3 flubs from me in 1 day -- I should have taken the day off!
I actually fixed that typo, but failed to include it:-(

> And then I pulled anyway, because you and others convinced me things
> had been in -next despite the commit dates being odd.
> 
> Let's just say that I'm really *really* disappointed. And dammit, you
> need to fix your workflow. Don't add random commits late. If you're
> offline, you're offline, and you send the old tested tree, not some
> last-minute crap.

Okay.

> Next time I find reason to complain, I just won't pull.  In fact, I'm
> seriously considering a rather draconian measure for next merge
> window: I'll fetch the -next tree when I open the merge window, and if
> I get anything but trivial fixes that don't show up in that "next tree
> at the point of merge window open", I'll just ignore that pull
> request. Because clearly people are just not being careful enough.

Agreed.  I don't think it would be 'Draconian' to enforce
a pre-merge-window-merge-window.  Indeed, if it were automated
and the timing were clearly known ahead of time, then
the structure would be helplful.

thanks,
-Len

--
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/