linux-kernel - Re: UFS V11 patch-set

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]

Message-ID: <20160322105827.GB2566@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:58:27 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
Cc:	vinayak holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
	JBottomley@...allels.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, hch@....de,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Carlos Palminha <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	"robh@...nel.org >> Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: UFS V11 patch-set

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:31:28AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:

> The following patch-set was approved by Arnd Bergmann and Rob Herring and I
> would appreciate that someone from SCSI / UFS gave a final checkout in order to
> evaluate the possibility of still merging it to v4.6 or putting it in a branch
> in SCSI to be merged to v4.7.

I've no idea why you're sending me this stuff but please stop - you sent
a similar mail yesterday and I see there were a bunch of similar mails
before you started CCing me into the thread - but sending daily top
posted content free pings is just going to annoy people (or at least
it's annoying me) and sending them to random other maintainers isn't
likely to improve things.  This is especially the case when we're more
than half way through the merge window and the code apparently isn't
even in -next yet.  

Please stop this and follow Arnd's advice (which you quoted from the
message you're replying to):

> >> On 3/18/2016 2:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> >>> I think the code is ok now, but the timing apparently didn't work for 4.6.
> >>> I'd suggest you resend as soon as 4.6-rc1 is out so it can get merged into 4.7.

If there's some reason to break the process you need to articulate what
it is and give people a chance to respond but that's *very* rare, unless
there is an unusually strong reason people are going to use the normal
development workflow.

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