linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: update_rq_clock() must skip ONE update

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: <CA+55aFywHpvUfghS4GFc3UC1WGZx3Of+zeKHxmRNcMQMoKoiJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:13:20 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: update_rq_clock() must skip ONE update

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Mike Galbraith
<umgwanakikbuti@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Point of being verbose was to make sure it was clear exactly how this
> harmless little bug selectively kills large IO boxen..

My point is that if you want it to be applied hours before I make a
release, I need to be made aware of how critical it is.

The data/commentary in the commit message made *zero* sense to me in
that regards. It was just noise. The fact that I was explicitly cc'd
made me think that you considered it critical and that I should apply
it. The fact that the commit message was entirely jocular, mixed in
with "hard data" that didn't actually explain anything, then made me
go "Maybe it's not critical".

See where I'm coming from?

              Linus
--
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/