linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/44] Meta Linux Kernel Port

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: <20130126215338.GA25964@balrog>
Date:	Sat, 26 Jan 2013 21:53:38 +0000
From:	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/44] Meta Linux Kernel Port

Hi Arnd,

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:25:09AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 25 January 2013, James Hogan wrote:
> > Review seems to have gone quiet. I'm fairly happy with this core
> > patchset in it's currently form (only trivial alterations required since
> > the v3 patches, e.g. some review comments and rebasing on linus/master),
> > and would like to get it into the v3.9 merge window. What's the best way
> > forward? I presume I need to get acks on each individual patch?
> 
> 
> I've just looked through the entire series once more and could not find
> any show-stoppers. I consider this ready for 3.9, and I'm also quite happy
> with Vineet's ARC port, although I think he is still integrating some
> feedback comments.

Thanks for taking another look over it and for all the guidance.

> I'd suggest that you both ask Stephen to add the trees to linux-next
> now (I thought you had done that already, but I don't see them there
> at the moment).

Okay. Yeh, I was holding off expecting to need more acks.

> You don't need Acked-by statements on every single patch, but having
> more of those is certainly benefitial. When it comes to the merge
> window, please send a pull request to Linus, and keep me on Cc,
> so I can weigh in with an additional Ack to the series.

Okay, I'll try and get some more acks on specific patches.

> Until then, maybe you can have another look at each other's architecture
> trees (ARC and Meta). Since you are in exactly the same situation with
> upstream integration now, you are probably the best people to review
> the code, and you providing ACKs and constructive feedback to the other
> tree will helps others see that you are up to the job as an arch
> maintainer. I have also given a few comments to one of you that
> may actually apply to the other one just as well, but I can't remember
> now what I discussed with whom ;-)

Good idea. I've been working on a few changes already based on ARC
feedback which also applies to Meta :-)

Cheers
James
--
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/