linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree

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: <e1cd32fd-6db2-0dc7-43c4-f678582326ad@suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:03:08 +0200
From:   Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree

On 2016-09-12 04:53, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering
> they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will
> have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these
> kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them.

I think it makes sense to merge the kbuild changes via kbuild.git, even
if they are unused and untested. Any follow-up fixes required to enable
the first architecture can go through the respective architecture tree.
Does that sound OK?

Michal