linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] DMA-mapping updates for v3.11

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 04 Jul 2013 08:09:15 +0200
From:	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DMA-mapping updates for v3.11

Hello,

On 7/3/2013 11:02 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Marek Szyprowski
> <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> wrote:
> >
> > Right, I dropped one commit, which I found in other 'for_next' kernel tree
> > (the one from Russell King) before sending the pull request. What's wrong with
> > this approach?
>
> What did dropping the commit fix? Anything?
>
> DO NOT REBASE UNLESS YOU HAVE SERIOUSLY PRESSING REASONS!
>
> Why does this keep on coming up EVERY SINGLE RELEASE? Does nobody read my rants?
>
> A duplicate commit not a "seriously pressing reason". It may be reason
> for some introspection ("why did I and Russell end up applying the
> same patch and stepping on each others toes?") but it is not in itself
> at all a reason for rebasing.
>
> Reasons for rebasing include:
>
>   - "I am a complete moron, and I have terminally messed up my history
> with merges from random places to the point where it is completely
> unpullable"
>
>   - "There are commits that are so horribly broken in the history that
> I can't even revert them, because seeing them mentioned one more time
> will make me go blind"
>
> and the best one:
>
>   - "I never made my patches public in the first place, and I'll clean
> my ugly series up before posting them publicly for the first time".
>
> but that last one shouldn't happen just before sending it to me, it
> should happen a few weeks before sending to me so that linux-next has
> time to digest the beauty of the rebased series.
>
> The fact is, rebasing is a perfectly fine operation, but it's a fine
> operation that causes lots of problems if those commits have ever been
> public before. It means that linux-next cannot easily be compared to
> what I pull (which is why Stephen complains), but it also results in
> other developers not being able to trust your tree, and in the commits
> randomly changing and the testing base thus not being reliable any
> more (which is why I complain).

Ok, right. MY FAULT. I'm really sorry. I will never do it again.

Now, I want to repair what I broke. Do you want me to restore my tree to
the point before the rebase and send pull request again? The current tree
already appeared at next-20130703, so I wonder what would cause less harm
to others.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland


--
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/