linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] locks: move most locks_release_private calls outside of i

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]

Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:51:31 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] locks: move most locks_release_private calls outside
 of i_lock

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:28:27AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> This s reinforced by the lack of Acked-by, Reviewed-by and Tested-by
> tags ... (the addition of which would presumably require the rebase
> (or rewrite) of a published git tree.)

By the way, I reshuffled my branches recently so the one you pull has
incoming patches that I think are mature enough to be worth testing but
haven't finished review yet.

That was partly Jeff's request, as he wanted his patches to get some
exposure while waiting for review.

It also means I can fold in some minor fixes instead of piling up fixes
for nits found by the kbuild robot.  (But maybe that unfairly denies it
some credit, I don't know.)

Anyway that means that branch is getting rewritten, say, weekly, as
opposed to never (or maybe for once-in-a-year level screwups).

Am I doing it wrong?

--b.
--
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/