linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Char/Misc driver patches for 4.12-rc1

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: <CA+55aFxX6aH8nnVUwyFvNkjg5pKD0LWYA56nhPtUz81sxi7LWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 May 2017 13:01:34 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Char/Misc driver patches for 4.12-rc1

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 09:00:06AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 19:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >
>> > Ugh. I'm not particularly happy with the conflicts I got and my
>> > resolutions there-of.
>>
>> Yes, we really should have done this via a postmerge tree.  We've had
>> so little cause to use them recently, I suspect everyone's forgotten
>> how.
>
> Huh?  You could have pulled in my tree into this one, or I could have
> done that for you, my trees are not rebased at all, and they get used
> this way every other release or so for this very reason.

I actually would have preferred to not get any early merges, but what
I was unhappy about is that I also didn't really get any heads-up
about the cdev_device_add() conflict.

I did get notified about the other conflict (thanks, James), but
somehow the cdev_device_add() changes didn't cause the same kind of
notification.

So my unhappiness is not about me having to resolve things (I'm happy
to do that) but about how apparently -next failed to notice that part
of my merge resolution. Or maybe it was noticed in -next, but then the
information about it got lost.

I prefer doing merge resolutions myself, but I *also* really really
prefer the two sides of the conflict having been more aware of the
clash.

                      Linus