linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

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:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:01:25 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
Cc:	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@....de>,
	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	Git Mailing List <git@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think the original "resolve" did it, for example. You can't do
>> a three-way merge without a base.
>
> Yes, and that continues to this day:

Yeah, "octopus" also refuses it cleanly:

        common=$(git merge-base --all $SHA1 $MRC) ||
                die "Unable to find common commit with $pretty_name"

The code in the recursive merge that allows this to happen is this:

        if (merged_common_ancestors == NULL) {
                /* if there is no common ancestor, use an empty tree */
                struct tree *tree;

                tree = lookup_tree(EMPTY_TREE_SHA1_BIN);
                merged_common_ancestors = make_virtual_commit(tree, "ancestor");
        }

so the "no common ancestors" is just considered to be an empty merge base.

And I do think that's right, and I think it's clever, and it goes back to 2006:

  934d9a24078e merge-recur: if there is no common ancestor, fake empty one

but I think there should be an option there.

> This is a tangent but I wonder if we should say why we refuse to
> the standard error before calling these two "exit"s.

As mentioned, Octopus does.

That said, there's probably no reason to ever use the old three-way
merge, so I'm not even sure it's worth fixing the old
git-merge-resolve.

            Linus