linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] timer: clean up initializers and implement irqsafe timers

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: <20120814230100.GF25632@google.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:01:00 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	mingo@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] timer: clean up initializers and implement irqsafe
 timers

Hello, Thomas.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:45:24AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> And we have very well worked out mechanisms regarding cross tree
> changes, i.e. providing minimal trees to pull for other maintainers.

If you look at the review branches, they're actually structured that
way so that the timer part can be pulled separately.  If the
maintainer wants to do that, sure.  If the maintainer thinks routing
through another tree is fine, that's okay too.  Subsystem boundaries
are all good and great but it's not some absolute barrier which can't
be crossed at any cost.

> > If you're upset about the style of the ping, I apologize.  I'll try
> > to be more sensitive when pinging you.
> 
> It's not about me. You are trying to play the system.

Thomas, I wasn't trying to get it through behind your back.  You have
been notified clearly multiple times and have ample opportunities to
object and suggest different ways if you don't like whatever is going
on.

I probably should have written "if the maintainer doesn't object, I
think it would be easier to route these through wq/for-3.7 as it will
be the only user for now, blah blah blah" instead and maybe I
misjudged the character of the changes or the subsystem.  That said, I
think you're inferring too much.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/