linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/12] fscache: Fixes, traces and development

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]

Date:   Fri, 6 Apr 2018 12:40:19 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/12] fscache: Fixes, traces and development

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:28 PM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> That's okay with all the patches as follow up emails?

Actually, I generally just look at the git tree and don't need the
individual patches at all, at least as long as they are only to a
particular subsystem.

So if your git tree only touches fs/afs/ and fs/fscache/, just the
pull request email alone is sufficient.

It's only when people start touching core code or do cross-subsystem
things that I appreciate actually seeing the patches separated out.

In fact, even then it's generally fine to just point to the git tree
and just mention the patches that extend out of just the pure
subsystem (and why they do so).

Both your afs and fscache pulls looked fine to me, and didn't have
that issue (ok, the fscache one touches 9p and afs too, but those are
"afs and 9p use fscache", so it's not something that made me go
"Hmm..".

              Linus