linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] first batch of ufs fixes

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+55aFw+1VwZyC_XCRUY30JC+WM6hYW_oU82YTMpsj4brO-4Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:12:15 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] first batch of ufs fixes

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> BTW, should I send an updated pull request in such situation?

It's better if you do, although in this case it was obvious that you'd
just added a single line and I could see the diffstat still match with
that addition.

But in general it just makes things easier for me when I see that
updated pull request, and it is obvious that "yes, Al clearly meant me
to pull that, despite it not matching the original pull request".

                   Linus