linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] IPMI updates for 4.15

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+55aFzmYPE82c7R=rCDwPXOYSVybWvGTRN9K87t_Osa_3NhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:18:55 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
Cc:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] IPMI updates for 4.15

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org> wrote:
>
> NOTE: As Jessica sent in the module request, there was a conflict
> between the module code and this code, some IPMI driver code
> was split into a different file that the module tree modified.  I
> merged in the module tree to fix the conflict.  Hopefully I did
> this all correctly and the merge is smooth for you, and I believe
> you need to merge the module code first.

So this pull looks ok, but in general I would have just preferred
tohave been just notified about what the conflict is and what's going
on, and I can merge those things up. It was just an argument that got
constified in the module tree, I could have fixed it up trivially.

That way the pull requests don't end up being dependent on each other like this.

           Linus