linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] XArray for 4.19

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]

Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:41:11 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XArray for 4.19

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:23 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Dan added an entirely new function here:
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/willy/linux-dax.git/commitdiff/c2a7d2a115525d3501d38e23d24875a79a07e15e
>
> which needed to be converted to XArray.  So I should have pulled in his
> branch as a merge somewhere close to the end of my series, then done a
> fresh patch on top of that to convert it?

No, it doesn't matter if you rebase on top of a broken branch, or you
merge it in. Either way, it's broken and I can't merge your end
result.

You should simply NOT CARE about other branches. Particularly not
other branches that might not even get merged in the first place!

You should care about *YOUR* work.  You should make sure *your* work
is rock solid, and that it is based on a rock solid base. Not some
random shifting quick-sand of somebody elses development branch.

Sure, then linux-next will give a merge conflict, but at that point
YOU DO NOT REBASE OR MERGE. You tell linux-next how to merge it, and
mention it to me in the pull request.

Because at that point, I have the *choice* of merging just one of the
branches or both.  Or I can merge them in either order, and test them
independently?

See how that is fundamentally different from you tying the two
branches together and handing me a fait accompli?

Yes, yes, sometimes you have to tie branches together because one
branch fundamentally depends on the features the other branch offers.
But that should be avoided like a plague if at all possible.

And it damn well isn't an issue for something like xarray, which has a
life entirely independently of libnvdimm (and vice versa), and the
conflict was just random happenstance, not some "my changes
fundamentally rely on the new features you provide".

              Linus