linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] vfs part 3

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: <20150417155017.GB889@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:50:17 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs part 3

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:26:48PM -0400, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >         That leaves only the actual d_inode annotations series out of the
> > stuff already in for-next; there are several piles of stuff from various
> > folks I'm going to add there tonight, leave it all to stew until the middle
> > of the next week or so and send the final pull request then.  I hoped to do
> > that last bit on Monday, but since there won't be -next on Thursday and
> > Friday, this will probably have to happen a couple of days later ;-/
> 
> We can just leave that for next time.
> 
> I abhor this "feed things in chunks _during_ the merge window".
> 
> If this had been four different and separate branches that did
> separate cleanups and had all been independently of each other in
> linux-next since before the merge window, and had been in a "ready to
> merge" state, that would be one thing. But this kind of "let's feed
> Linus one chunk, then work on the next one" is not how it is supposed
> to work. Not during the merge window,

Actually, the pull requests so far (as well as d_inode annotation patches)
had been in -next - the main reason for not sending a single pull request
was the fact that such single pull would bring in a large part of net-next.
Separation between #2 and #3 wasn't due to "work on the next one" kind of
thing either - both had been there at the same time...

How do you prefer to deal with the situations like one with net-next?
I really don't know - mostly I've managed to avoid that kind of merges
from other trees, so it hadn't come up.  This time the topology inside
vfs.git#for-next had ended up much trickier than usual...

And do you have problems with actual d_inode/d_backing_inode annotation
patches left in for-next?
--
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/