linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 24

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: <20131025154546.GE26122@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:45:46 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 24

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:33:43AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > The rule I was applying (which I think is the same as Stephen applies)
> > is that I'd fix anything that was definitely the result of a merge issue
> > (like the build failure in misc due to a sysfs API change in the sysfs
> > tree) but not anything that was just plain broken in the tree in
> > isolation.

> Some of those might still make sense, but as many as possible of them
> should be pushed down into the trees where they belong, even if
> they're strictly not needed there (as long as they don't break the
> standalone tree, of course).

Right, this is strictly for issues generated as a result of a change in
one tree that cause an issue when merged with another tree like adding a
user of an API in one tree that has had an incompatible change in
another.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)