linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the vfs tree

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: <5462d90a-0cac-ca10-1633-275a9836ad41@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:09:21 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the vfs tree

Hi Thomas,

On 6/22/2018 6:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:45:23PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>>> Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thomas and David, please let me know what I can do from my side to help
>>>> with this.
>>>
>>> You could try basing on Al Viro's for-next tree which has the mount API
>>> changes in it.
>>
>> Umm...  That would be a massive headache for everyone involved; the changes
>> in there have very little in common with what you are doing in rdt_mount(),
>> so it might make sense to start with a minimal never-rebased branch that
>> would
>> 	* define rdt_pseudo_lock_init as 0
>> 	* define rdt_pseudo_lock_release as empty
>> 	* do the rdt_mount() part of a3dbd01e6c9d
>> 	* have commit message along the lines of
>> "hooks in rdt_mount() for rdt_pseudo_lock to use
>>
>> Functionally a no-op right now; the only reason for having that
>> as a never-rebased branch to get rdt_pseudo_lock and mount series
>> out of each other's hair"
>>
>> Base that on -rc1, then pull it into your rdt branch and David could pull the
>> same into his.
> 
> Yes, that works.
> 
> Reinette, can you please look into creating that ordering. Then we just zap
> the existing branch and redo it with this scheme.

Will do. How would you prefer to consume this to make the branches
simple to create? Is it ok if I create a new patch series with Al's
suggestion above as the first commit?

The original pseudo-locking patch series consisted out of two sections
with the pseudo-locking specific parts starting in the middle. If I
create a new series with the above change then it will not be cleanly
separate anymore. Is that ok?

Reinette