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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:49:55 +0200 From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@...com> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> CC: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Korsgaard <peter@...sgaard.com>, "kernel@...inux.com" <kernel@...inux.com>, Kieran Bingham <kieranbingham@...il.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [STLinux Kernel] [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP On 09/30/2015 04:28 PM, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: >>> I prefer not to merge patches that cannot be tested. Without >>> the DT bits in patch 6 the other five patches are useless. So >>> I think patch 6 should be applied together with the other five >>> which add the driver. >> That's crazy talk. If all subsystem maintainers abide by this rule >> there would be chaos. We'd either need to send pull-requests to each >> other for every set which crossed a subsystems boundary, or 1000's of >> merge conflicts would ensue at merge time. >> >> The (sensible) rule we normally stick to is; as long as there isn't >> a _build_ dependency, then the patches should filter though their >> respective trees; _functional_ dependencies have nothing to do with >> us as maintainers. Another chaos preventing rule we abide by is; thou >> shalt not apply patches belonging to other maintainer's subsystems >> without the appropriate Ack-by and a subsequent "you may take this >> though your tree" and/or "please send me an immutable pull-request". > So you want the series to be merged in two parts via two different > trees where neither can be tested? That sounds crazy to me. > Yes, that's what we want, and that's how people work usually. I will repeat what Lee was saying, what we have to ensure as maintainer is that our tree is building. We will be able to test it with linux-next. Regards, Maxime -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists