linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 4.8-rc4

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: <CA+55aFxk2EHr73xBgUz3D63yEkH4xmqJdk=XX=fYRNhLrWDNjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2016 18:55:54 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 4.8-rc4

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> - Revert two previous floppy changes, since they caused a user visibile
>   regression. A better fix is in the works.

Those reverts have no sign-off, and no explanation for them.

No, a revert may not have any copyright value, but the sign-offs have
been our main way to also see who actually did stuff and what the
chain was. All the usual "who caused this" background for reverts.

What was it that went wrong? Nobody knows. Not from the logs, at least.

I pulled it, but just FYI: reverts need explanations too. They need to
explain why they happened and what went wrong.

              Linus