linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drivers-x86 tree with the watchdog 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]

Date:   Tue, 2 May 2017 14:30:46 -0700
From:   Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drivers-x86 tree with the
 watchdog tree

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:57:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:12:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:09:40AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > From my perspective, the most direct solution would be to drop these two patches
> > from the watchdog tree and let them go through the platform driver x86 tree with
> > Guenter's Acked-by. If you have additional patches which depend on these two,
> > then if you will provide an immutable branch we can merge, we can do that too
> > (but I try to keep the number of external merges to a minimum - which is
> > becoming increasingly difficult lately for some reason).
> 
> Sorry for not being in doubt, I just decided that Ack from Guenter
> means that default case is to go through PDx86 tree without any
> additional agreement.

I assumed that was the case, yes. I read through the thread and would have
thought the same. As Guenter is directing us to Wim, I think the MAINTAINERS
file doesn't really capture the logistics of the watchdog maintainer model, as a
Reviewed-by from a listed maintainer wouldn't be typical unless they expected
someone else to merge it - in this case, I suppose Guenter meant Wim and not us
:-)

-- 
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center