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  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:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:37:38 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <>
To:	Jon Ringle <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: only call custom reg_update_bits() if reg is
 marked volatile

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:50:43AM -0400, Jon Ringle wrote:

> 4) David should then merge the regmap for-next branch into net-next

What I generally do (and what's best practice in general for cross tree
work) is apply patches on topic branches and then create a signed tag
for anything that's being merged into another tree.  That both means
we've got a signed tag for the chain of trust in the code and means that
only the specific dependency gets pulled into other trees rather than
everything that's queued.  Minimising what's pulled in makes pull
requests look cleaner and avoids noise from in development code
appearing in other trees (eg, any bugs in other code that's not quite
ready won't get merged).

In my specific trees nobody should ever merge my for-FOO branches,
they're rebuilt frequently - the topic branches are fast forward only
and intended for that (though like I say a signed tag is best).  Linus
complains about keeping the for-FOO branches fast forward

> 5) I will submit a new patch to net-next for the encx24j600 driver
> that should build against the regmap changes

> Sound like a good plan?

Makes sense to me modulo the signed tag thing above.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists