linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tile: support GENERIC_KERNEL_THREAD and GENERIC_KERNEL

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, 23 Oct 2012 23:25:06 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jeff King <peff@...f.net>
cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, git@...r.kernel.org,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tile: support GENERIC_KERNEL_THREAD and
 GENERIC_KERNEL_EXECVE

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Jeff King wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:47:28PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > I agree that this is a common issue. Acked-by/Reviewed-by mails come
> > in after the fact that the patch has been committed to an immutable
> > (i.e no-rebase mode) branch or if the change in question already hit
> > Linus tree.
> > 
> > Still it would be nice to have a recording of that in the git tree
> > itself.
> > 
> > Something like: "git --attach SHA1 <comment>" would be appreciated!
> 
> It is spelled:
> 
>   git notes add -m <comment> SHA1

Cool!

> The resulting notes are stored in a separate revision-controlled branch

Which branch(es) is/are that ? What are the semantics of that?

Assume I commit something to branch "foo"

Now I get that late Ack/Reviewed-by and want to associate that to that
commit in branch "foo". Does that go into "notes/foo" ?

If yes, good. (Any other sensible prefix is good as well). If no,
where does it go to?

Later when I send a pull request to my upstream maintainer for branch
"foo" does he get "notes/foo" automagically or do I have to request to
pull him that separately?

Either way is fine for me, though something which lets me "automate"
that would be appreciated. I can work around that easily as my pull
requests are generated via scripts, so I can add the secondary one for
the dependent "notes" branch if necessary. Though it would be nice to
avoid that. Avoiding that, i.e having a straight connection (maybe
configurable) between "foo" and "notes/foo" and the commits which have
not yet hit my upstream maintainer would make my life easier. I.e. I
just have to check "foo" for stuff which is not upstream yet instead
of checking both, but that might just be my laziness.

Thoughts?

	tglx
--
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/