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: <20170913152213.GI27765@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:22:13 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        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 Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:05:00AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
> 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.
> 
Depends. A tag only makes sense if the branch isn't rebased, otherwise
(if the tag can change) it would be misleading (as would be to report
the version number from Makefile).

I usually don't report the SHA, mostly for historic reasons
from times when I had to create the git branch myself. I sometimes
report it if/when I notice that the branch changed after the review
request e-mail.

Given that, I think reporting the SHA is better, since it reports clearly
which version was tested.

Guenter