linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for 4.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CA+55aFxUwqNR8PUOstLnMhnD=c_vujugp=b3Hj6hDAfzWbN9kA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2015 05:40:47 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for 4.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>
> Ok, now this is really uncalled for.

No, it really isn't.

You still seem to be in denial:

> And dammit, I did test the hell of this thing. Like everything else I'm
> testing. I'm trying to do my best but I can only try.

NO YOU DID NOT! Stop claiming that.

You didn't actually test what you sent me. YOU TESTED SOMETHING
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

Do you really not see the difference? Because that's a honking big difference.

What needs to happen is:

 - you get rid of all the commits that don't work as-is in your tree.

   If there is a commit that depends on something that isn't in your
tree, that commit needs to be gone.

 - I can then merge that subset that actually works on its own.

And then, eventually, the commits that depend on other code, need to
be rebased and re-tested on top of what they depend on. Because we
don't *merge* dependencies after-the-fact. That just means that parts
of the tree never worked.

In the future, if you have code that depends on other non-merged
branches, you should make separate branches for that code, and base it
on top of the code it depends on.

You *never* do what you apparently did here, which was to pick a
random point in the past that wasn't even sufficient for the code you
wanted to test, and then say "in order for this code to work, it needs
to be merged with something else".

                   Linus
--
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/