linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb-gadget tree with the vfs tree

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:	Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:16:30 -0500
From:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb-gadget tree with the vfs tree

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:09:21PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the usb-gadget tree got a conflict in
> > > > drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c between commit 8322215aa91c ("f_fs:
> > > 
> > > I can't find this commit on linux-usb. In fact, googling for it the only
> > > reference I find to that commit is this very thread. I would strong
> > > suggest that it be removed from the tree as it, apparently, went in
> > > without any review. Sure, it's a simple change, but it needs to be
> > > reviewed and needs to be sent to proper maintainers.
> > > 
> > > Unless I'm missing something, of course, but I could not find any other
> > > references to this commit.
> > > 
> > > Al, was this commit sent to any mailing list ?
> > 
> > a gentle ping here
> 
> <looks at #for-next>
> 
> Oh, bugger...  I see what has happened - there's a local queue with a lot
> of pending cleanups; this (and several around it) got into the wrong queue
> and leaked into #for-next.  My apologies; I can certainly take this stuff
> out.  It is an obvious patch, and the only reason why it's there at all
> is that it's a part of preliminary cleanups for sorting the
> d_add/d_splice_alias/d_materialise_unique/d_instantiate/d_add_unique
> mess out.  That almost certainly will be a part of the next cycle, in
> the first place, and this particular commit isn't even a prereq - it's just
> something that fell out of grep while sorting out the calling conventions
> for those guys (what's locked, what is or isn't hashed, etc.)
> 
> So I've no problems whatsoever either with ripping it out of -next and moving
> it to the local queue until the next cycle, or throwing it your way and waiting
> for it to hit the mainline.  Both f_fs and gadgetfs commits should go your
> way, right?  Just tell which way you prefer them handled...  Again, I hadn't
> planned to push those; there's no reason not to, but they can certainly sit
> around for longer.  Sorry about the mess...

Hey, no problem. At least now we know it was just a mistake. If you can
just add my Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> to both gadgetfs and
f_fs, I'd be very glad.

Thanks for looking into it.

cheers

-- 
balbi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)