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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4a76c468-f336-c0ed-75b8-2e600d786f86@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2016 22:42:01 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 4.8-rc4

On 08/26/2016 07:55 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

You are right, those reverts should have the reasoning included.

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

Thanks.

-- 
Jens Axboe