linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] staging: lustre: headers: sort headers affected by obdo move

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: <20161210181433.GA8477@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:14:33 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Ben Evans <bevans@...y.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] staging: lustre: headers: sort headers affected
 by obdo move

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 01:05:59PM -0500, James Simmons wrote:
> From: Ben Evans <bevans@...y.com>
> 
> It was found if you sort the headers alphabetically
> that it reduced patch conflicts. This patch sorts
> the headers alphabetically and also place linux
> header first, then uapi header and finally the
> lustre kernel headers.

I still don't agree, when did you last have a patch conflict with this
file in the .h section?  And exactly how hard was it to fix it up?

I'm all for cleanups, but really, this is useless.  And I said so the
last time you sent it...

greg k-h