linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] [GIT PULL] tracing: More fixes for 4.20

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: <20181130131329.7feb6fa9@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:13:29 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] [GIT PULL] tracing: More fixes for 4.20

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 09:41:00 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:19 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > Note, this is on top of a previous git pull that I have submitted:
> >
> >   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181127224031.76681fe0@vmware.local.home  
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> I had dismissed that, because the patch descriptors for that series
> had had "for-next" in them.
> 
>     https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181122002801.501220343@goodmis.org/
> 
> so I dismissed that pull request entirely as being not for this
> release entirely.
> 
> I went back and merged things, but in general, please try to avoid
> confusing me. I'm easily confused when I get mixed messages about the
> patches and the pull requests, and will then generally default to
> "ignore, this is informational".
>

My apologies. I used my scripts to push them into my linux-next repo,
and it added the [for-next] when doing so in the series. I wanted it to
sit in next for a week (because I modified a bunch of architecture code
that I could only compile test, but not run).

I'll be more careful next time.

Thanks!

-- Steve