linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] mount API series

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:   Thu, 1 Nov 2018 22:05:19 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, swhiteho@...hat.com,
        john.johansen@...onical.com, alan.christopher.jenkins@...il.com,
        ebiederm@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] mount API series

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:33:31AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Al - can I ask you to look at helping David with something like that?
> You tend to be very good at generating those patch-series with
> "obviously no changes" for the individual patches, but the end result
> ends up being totally different from the starting point (I'm thinking
> of all the locking and dentry refcounting series).

I'll try.  Before we go there, I'd like to get the rest of vfs.git off
my hands - AFS series and misc pile.  Will send pull requests shortly,
then - this stuff.  Do you mind if we end up with work.mount rebased?
The usual objections re testing in -next do not apply in this case,
AFAICS...