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  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]
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:14:49 -0400
From:	Sasha Levin <>
To:	Greg KH <>
CC:,,,,,,, Sasha Levin <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb-core: Revert "usb-core: Remove Fix mes in file hcd.c"

On 07/23/2014 12:49 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 08:56:10AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > Revert since the commit message is incorrect and the original author refuses
>> > to fix/maintain it because "it's in the kernel already".
> How can someone "fix" a commit message that is already in the tree?  You
> can't.  The code part is correct, so why introduce the issue back?

(I'm not trying to be aggressive, I just think that I misunderstand how this
part of the process works exactly).

I thought we can always edit -next trees? Why do we have to maintain fast forward
on them?

What happens, if for example you take a patch that causes build breakage? Would you
add a revert after that or just yank the commit out of the tree?

If you add a revert and leave the original broken commit in, wouldn't it cause issues
for anyone trying to bisect a build breakage?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists