linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL v4 00/21] libnd: non-volatile memory device support

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hHgJe92kMLj+CKdFDN9jo4RYYEj4bTrYwo-c9P6CZWfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 May 2015 02:42:32 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	jmoyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	Nicholas Moulin <nicholas.w.moulin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v4 00/21] libnd: non-volatile memory device support

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,

[...]

>>>>>     2/ Update to latest NFIT UUID definitions (Toshi).  This
>>>>>        merges cleanly with, and is identical to the include/acpi/
>>>>>        NFIT enabling in Rafael's linux-pm.git/bleeding-edge branch.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I didn't expect you to send a pull request for this right away
>>>> to be honest.
>>>
>>> No worries, we can address these concerns now...
>>>
>>>> Can you please pull from my acpica branch and rebase your patches on
>>>> top of that by any chance?
>>>
>>> I noticed that bleeding-edge rebased from the last time I checked is
>>> that branch stable enough to use as a baseline?
>>
>> There is a separate acpica branch (called "acpica") that's not going
>> to be rebased.  Please use that one.
>>
>>>> And no, the "merges cleanly" part isn't sufficient as it'll create a
>>>> mess of a history if merged together like that.  Can we do that
>>>> properly instead?
>>>
>>> If I merge 'bleeding-edge' on top of v4.1-rc5 followed by this branch
>>> and do a "git log include/acpi/acuuid.h" then the full history from
>>> the 'bleeding-edge' branch shows up.
>>>
>>> I'm fine with doing the rebase, but I don't quite see the mess to
>>> which you are referring.  Especially compared to the thrash of moving
>>> our test baseline.
>>
>> People will not be running your test baseline, mind you.  They will be
>> running the product of merging that with other stuff and for example
>> the same change showing as two different commits in the history is not
>> a particularly clean thing.
>
> That's what -rc kernels are for, to test your development baseline
> against everything that came in during the merge window, i.e. when you
> know you have a solid development baseline to reference.  Linus
> reprimands late rebasing for good reason.
>
> Really, we're going to rebase 13,000 lines of new functionality and 20
> patches to prevent recording some extra history around 200+ lines of
> header definitions?  The history for those 200 lines being
> autogenerated from another repo.  I struggle to resolve the risk
> benefit tradeoff of going this route... are you sure this is a hard
> gate for moving forward with this patch set?

And how much time is it going to take to rebase it, actually?

If all is so clean as you're suggesting, a "git rebase" should be
sufficient for that really.  Is it not the case?

I do believe that having a clean history in the repository is
important, especially for big new and complicated features like this
one.

For the same reason I don't believe that rushing such features in no
matter what is the right approach.

If Jens decides to pull it regardless, it's his call, but I wouldn't
do that if I were him.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/