linux-kernel - Re: kvmtool tree (Was: Re: [patch] config: fix make kvmconfig)

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: <5112D13C.7030406@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:55:08 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kvmtool tree (Was: Re: [patch] config: fix make kvmconfig)

On 02/06/2013 01:46 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> Linus has said that he will not take the kvmtool tree in its 
>> current form, but would prefer that it be a separate project, 
>> so I should really drop it from linux-next (and ask the tip 
>> guys to remove it from their auto-latest branch).
>>
>> I have actually been meaning to get back to this, so, today I 
>> will drop the kvmtool tree and, Ingo, if you could (at your 
>> convenience i.e. when you are next rebasing it) remove it from 
>> tip/auto-latest, thanks.
> 
> Pekka still intends to send it in the next merge window AFAIK, 
> and I use it for testing rather frequently so I'm not going to 
> remove it from my tree for the time being.
> 
> Note that I never actually had any maintenance problems due to 
> it: it's orthogonal, and as long as you don't use it explicitly 
> (such as its 'make kvmconfig' feature - which is rather handy) 
> it never actually broke anything.
> 

So why don't we let Linus either accept and reject it for the 3.9 merge,
but it rejected, we drop it from linux-next until such time as Linus'
objections have been addressed?

	-hpa


--
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/