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]
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