| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 15:45:58 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: wolfgang.walter@...m.de Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 3.3.x: e1000 and ixgbe hang From: Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...m.de> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 18:57:13 +0200 > But when we are at it: I think that when a bug in a stable kernel is > found and the final fix is known it is bad practice to hord that > patch till submission without letting stable@ know about it. I think you have no idea what goes into vetting patches for -stable. It can take me days to put together a series, and also I time my -stable submissions with when Linus pulls my 'net' bug fixes into his tree since a part of the -stable requirements is presence in Linus's tree. I therefore batch, because bleeding out individual fixes one by one to -stable rarely, if ever, makes sense. And another part of what goes into vetting a patch is time. The longer a patch sits in a non-stable tree getting tested, the more likely any unwanted bugs and side effects will be caught before the patch goes into -stable. And finally I am under no obligation whatsoever to post some kind of status report to -stable every few days saying when I'll do this or that. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists