linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the drivers-x86 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:36:02 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Bhardwaj, Rajneesh" <rajneesh.bhardwaj@...ux.intel.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the drivers-x86 tree

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:40 AM Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:45:56PM +0530, Bhardwaj, Rajneesh wrote:
> > On 07-Feb-19 9:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 AM Bhardwaj, Rajneesh
> > > <rajneesh.bhardwaj@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On 07-Feb-19 4:27 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> > > > In commit
> > > >
> > > >    4284dc008f43 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Fix file permissions for ltr_show")
> > > >
> > > > Fixes tag
> > > >
> > > >    Fixes: 63cde0c16c67 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Show Latency Tolerance info")
> > > >
> > > > has these problem(s):
> > > >
> > > >    - Target SHA1 does not exist
> > > >
> > > > Did you mean:
> > > >
> > > >    2eb150558bb7 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Show Latency Tolerance info")
> > > >
> > > > Yes, upstream commit is 2eb150558bb79ee01c39b64c2868216c0be2904f. For some reason when i do git show on my repo with both these SHA1 i see the same patch.
> > > >
> > > > I will fix this in next version.
> > > Hmm... this came to our published branch, i.e. for-next, would it be
> > > better to update it via rebasing?
> > >
> > > Darren, what do you think?
> >
> > Hi Andy, I have corrected this in v2 anyway and i sent to upstream today,
> > just in case you prefer it over rebasing.
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10810123/
> >
>
> While we try hard not to rebase, if the choice is to rebase for-next or send a
> bad commit to upstream, I will opt for the rebase.
>
> Andy, I would suggest doing the rebase.

Okay, I do it right now then,

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko