linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review

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: <CAOfXc9HX7T_nYzFPmRT8yr2bsB6FL+xwScMotnnd_ptRmshvVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:05:00 -0500
From:   Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:27:45PM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 12, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Results from testing on Linaro’s small but growing test farm.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Summary
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> kernel: 4.9.50-rc1
>> kernel-repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> kernel-branch: linux-4.9.y
>> kernel-commit: edfaa5f69b96ae777b0acd2bfe1da26e21592001
>> kernel-describe: v4.9.49-15-gedfaa5f69b96
>
> Howcome 'git describe' does not show 4.9.50-rc1?

git describe looks for the most recent tag.

Since there isn't a 4.9.50-rc1 tag, we get 4.9.49 + 15 patches etc.

Does it make sense to create tags for the RC(s) so git describe gets
it right? Given the right version is in the Makefile kinda feels like
that'd be a belt and suspenders approach.

<snip>




-- 
Regards,
Tom

Director, Linaro Mobile Group
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
irc: tgall_foo | skype : tom_gall

"Where's the kaboom!? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering
kaboom!" Marvin Martian