linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: rebase of the jdelvare-hwmon quilt series

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: <20130711165343.f921e147403570508939f2df@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:53:43 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: rebase of the jdelvare-hwmon quilt series

Hi Jean,

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 07:57:00 +0200 Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:27:24 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Why have you just rebased the jdelvare-hwmon series
> > (http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/linux-3/jdelvare-hwmon/)?  You have
> > just invalidated your testing and made it likely that Linus will blast
> > you if you ask him to pull your patches.  Your whole series was already
> > based after v3.10 (i.e. released or rebased after the merge window
> > opened), so why move it again?
> 
> I'm quite confused by this complaint of yours. I do not have the
> feeling that I rebased anything or invalidated any testing. And I don't
> think I did anything different this time from the way I have been
> proceeding for years.

Probably not, I guess I have been getting more sensitive lately.
However, you have changed the base of your quilt series.  This means that
you have included more changes from Linus' tree into your tree, thus any
testing you have done previously may be invalidated by those changes.

> I had only 2 hwmon patches for Linus for this merge window:
>   hwmon-lm63-drop-redundant-safety.patch
>   hwmon-lm90-drop-redundant-safety.patch

Yeah, sorry, but I was complaining to several people today.

> They have been in
> http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/linux-3/jdelvare-hwmon/ (and thus in
> linux-next) continuously since May 19th so I'd say they received pretty
> good testing. I did not touch them, I did not even have to refresh them.

Actually, those patches only hit linux-next on July 9 (my time), when the
were based on v3.10-6005-gd2b4a64.  Then today you changed the base of
your series to v3.10-8587-g496322b and added another patch.

> 3 days ago I added these 2 patches to the hwmon-for-linus branch of my
> staging tree:
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jdelvare/staging.git/log/?h=hwmon-for-linus
> and asked Linux to pull from it.

Which is probably when they hit linux-next.

> Yesterday I reviewed a new (trivial) hwmon patch, and I accepted it, so
> it was added to http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/linux-3/jdelvare-hwmon/ as 
> hwmon-w83792d-update-module-author.patch (and thus went to linux-next.)

And I have no problem with maintainers making judgement calls about
simple patches during the merge window.

It all seems a bit trivial when we are talking about 2 patches, but it is
the process that is important.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped