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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:13:25 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Libo Chen <libo.chen@...wei.com> Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com> Subject: Re: balance storm On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 08:55:20PM +0800, Libo Chen wrote: > On 2014/5/27 17:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > In any case, I'm not sure what the 'regression' report is against, as > > there's only a single kernel version mentioned: 3.4, and that's almost a > upstream has the same problem, I have mentioned before. Not on anything that landed in my inbox I think, but that's not the point. For a regression report you need _2_ kernel versions, one with and one without the 'problem'. Providing one (or two) that have a problem doesn't qualify. In any case, I didn't see the original email, but I got the impression that it was complaining about 'new' behaviour from the bits I did see as quoted. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists