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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFyyOPsvWyDHowBkGd+e7TKnLL8o9t0Ryu1QBE2Qa3iDVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:25:49 -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 3:18 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> That way the pull requests don't end up being dependent on each other like this.

Just to clarify - it wasn't a problem this time, but sometimes I *do*
end up delaying (or even rejecting) pulls, and quite often I strive to
merge similar pull requests together (ie "now I'm doing filesystems"
etc).

So avoiding dependencies between trees is good, and basically doing
cross-merges should be done only for pretty pressing reasons.

This merge window, for example, I did filesystems yesterday. Well,
*most* filesystems.

The AFS update depended on the networking pull, which hadn't come in
yesterday. I suspect that one has a really good reason for the
dependency, but if it hadn't had it, I would have been a bit annoyed
by that kind of cross-pollination when I try to organize my pull
requests..

But the fact that you both mentioned it in your respective pull
requests was good, and means that I don't pull and then find out the
hard way, which is the really annoying code.

So no worries.

Thanks.

                Linus