linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] arch/sh fixes for regressions in 4.6-rc1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFxKUhS=3Ui34J4r8ShLrGs9XpcdDT0=txFL4OE8km_oJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:08:29 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc:	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arch/sh fixes for regressions in 4.6-rc1

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> Please pull these changes (regression fixes only) for arch/sh. They're
> based on 4.6-rc1 when I did them, but apply cleanly to 4.6-rc3 and
> build successfully.

So I pulled this, but please don't do this:

    16b02d711f40 Merge tag 'v4.6-rc1'

there's no information in that merge commit why it would be needed,
and I cant' for the life of me see *why* it would be needed.

If you cannot explain why a merge is necessary, you should not do the
merge. It's really that simple.

So please

 - either just apply patches on top of your tree (no "let's merge
Linus' tree first")

 - or make your tree *start* at whatever base you want to use (ie
"let's check out v4.6-rc1, and apply patches on top of that base
commit")/

But do *not* start doing back-merges that aren't explained.

The back-merges make history harder to follow, and makes the graph
that gitk shows much messier. And _any_ commit that doesn't actually
explain why it is doing something is wrong, whether it's a merge or
not.

Anyway, the pull is in my tree, and I'll push it out soon, so you
don't need to do anything for this one. This complaint was purely a
"going forward" issue.

Thanks,

                 Linus