linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: Updates for v4.12

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:   Wed, 3 May 2017 18:59:05 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: Updates for v4.12

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
>  This will conflict with changes I have already sent to you. They may
>  not be so trivial to fix. I merged my urgent branch when pushing to
>  linux-next. You can look at how I resolved the conflicts in my
>  "for-next" branch, specifically sha1: f96d18dee6f09486b944b75f6151d36381f396b5

Hmm. My merge resolution is different, but I think I did it right.

Yours does

        ret = alloc_snapshot(&global_trace);

and I think it should be

        ret = alloc_snapshot(tr);

but you should double-check it. I only looked at the code, I didn't
actually *test* anything.

(There's a few other differences, but they are just ordering of the
function declarations).

Btw, I'd prefer to *not* see the full patch in the pull request if
it's this big. For small stuff, sure. For a multi-thousand-line patch?
I'm not reading those in a mail-reader anyway.

                    Linus