linux-kernel - Re: Fixes and cleanup from LTO 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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903261756100.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:00:07 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:     x86@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fixes and cleanup from LTO tree

Andi,

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Andi Kleen wrote:

> Here are a range of bug fixes and cleanups that have accumulated in my
> gcc Link Time Optimization (LTO) branches; for issues found
> by the compiler when doing global optimization and a few
> other issues.
> 
> (https://github.com/andikleen/linux-misc lto-*)
> 
> IMNSHO they are all useful improvements even without LTO support.
> 
> About half of it is in x86 specific code, but the others are
> random all over. I tried to always copy the respective maintainers,
> but since it's (nearly) a tree sweep I'm also copying Andrew.

Can you please once and forever stop sending a random pile of patches which
are:

  - fixes independent of LTO
  - LTO required changes
  - RFC material

It's very clear where x86 related patches go through and it's also clear
that fixes have to be separate from features and other material.

You complain about maintainers being inresponsive and slow, but you are not
even trying to make their work easier by following the general process.

Thanks,

	tglx