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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:36:02 -0400
From:	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:08:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

Sorry about that. My reason for starting with 4.6-rc1 was that I only
tested the changes on it, not my previous (pre-merge) version. But I
should have just rebased them on a clean branch from 4.6-rc1 rather
than merging my own, right (your option 2 above)?

> 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!

Rich