linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] please pull file locking changes for 3.15

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]

Message-ID: <20140407093518.301f9844@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:35:18 -0400
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] please pull file locking changes for 3.15

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 22:27:02 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
> 
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:11:30 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:37:06 +1000
> > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 20:56:24 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the feedback and for pulling this in anyway. I'll make sure
> > > > to do all of that on subsequent pull requests.
> > > 
> > > Also, please don't rebase what you have in linux-next before sending it to
> > > Linus (without good reason).  Especially if you then leave the linux-next
> > > included branch as it was - since that may cause conflicts in my tree
> > > (and so I notice the rebase).
> > 
> > I don't think I did that though, did I? Both the branches I had in this
> > case were based on 3.13-rc1.
> 
> OK, so the base stayed the same, but you recommitted all the same patches
> (I didn't check to see if the commit messages changed) which due to some
> other change caused conflicts in linux-next today :-( Not really a
> biggie, but generally, you really shouldn't rewrite your commits just
> before sending them to Linus.
> 
> > Now that Linus has pulled in the changes, am I OK to rebase the
> > branches (or do a pull)?
> 
> At this point, you should just reset your next included branch to be in
> Linus' tree beyond where Linus merged your tree, then it will be
> effectively empty (unless you then add some more patches on top - but at
> this point those should only be fixes).
> 

Ahh ok, I guess I *did* alter a commit message in my locks-3.15 branch
and didn't propagate that to my linux-next branch. That probably threw
off the commit IDs. The patches themselves should have been identical
though. Sorry about that!

In any case, I've gone ahead and reset my branch as you recommend and
linux-next branch and will be more careful about that in the future.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>

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