linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock

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: <20120313122053.GA17549@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:20:53 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the
 finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback

* Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk> wrote:

> Why am _I_ responsible for which kernel version _Catalin_ used 
> for _his_ patches when _he_ committed them?

If you then pull that tree from him and push it out to 
linux-next? Then *of course* you are responsible, it was your 
decision to pull it.

I frequently reject pulls from subsystem maintainers on similar 
(and sometimes lesser) grounds - because such mistakes tend to 
compound with time.

The thing is, if you do Git pulls from someone then you must be 
absolutely anal about it, because you cannot really fix things 
up after the fact. The people you pull from must be your 
extended arms, they must be doing an equal or better job than 
you. That gives a basis of trust.

Once that is established, you can be permissive about mistakes. 

But arguing that you are not responsible for what you pull is 
absolutely grotesque and establishes a new low for this 
discussion really...

Also, as I told you in the very first mail, I am *fine* with 
this having happened, so you having zapped the commits is 
indefensible IMO. Mistakes do happen and the patch is fine 
technically and sfr and Linus could have handled the trivial 
conflict. What I suggested was to do it a bit better in the 
future. Is that too much to ask for?

> You're insane.  Totally.

I think you owe me an apology :-(

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/