linux-kernel - Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 08/28] staging: lustre: restore initialization of return code

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:   Tue, 18 Oct 2016 01:00:44 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Patrick Farrell <paf@...y.com>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        "devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 08/28] staging: lustre: restore initialization of return code

On Monday, October 17, 2016 3:37:11 PM CEST Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I pasted the wrong error message when writing the changelog.
> 
> Not just the warning, the summary above it talks about the wrong
> function too. And the commit it references doesn't actually exist
> either. So apparently this is against something else than my tree.

Right, it slipped in here together with the other lustre patch when
I rebased my longer series (based on linux-next) onto v4.9-rc1.

Both applied cleanly to v4.9-rc1 and they are required on linux-next
(not the version with the wrong changelog of course) but have no
effect in mainline so far.

I'll double-check the rest of the series tomorrow, to see if some
of the other patches also have the same problem and are only
needed on linux-next. I meant to send those as part of the
separate series for v4.10.

For now, it would be good to know if you see any remaining warnings
on your machine after applying the current series (with or without
the lustre patches, doesn't matter) to a test branch. Some other
patches in the series likely need to go through a second revision
anyway.

	Arnd