linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] [GIT PULL] tracing: Minor fixes for 5.1-rc2

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:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:46:23 -0400
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 0/3] [GIT PULL] tracing: Minor fixes for 5.1-rc2

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:29:27 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:48 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > Should I work on changing this?  
> 
> I don't personally much care, but the pr-tracker-bot clearly does.
> 
> If you don't care about the automated "it's been pulled" message, that
> doesn't matter, of course.

I'm subscribed to your git tree and filter out all updates for my
signed off by. An then I get those emails. So I get the "Pulled"
message regardless.

> 
> That said, I'd almost prefer to get just the regular pull request
> without the patches. If the complete patch is small, it's often nice
> to see that _in_ the pull request (at the bottom), but I don't
> generally need or want the individual patches themselves as separate
> emails (unless there's some particular reason you want me to comment
> on something, or apply them directly as patches).

It's not really for you, but more for transparency in general. I have a
rule that I don't push anything to you that I haven't personally sent
to LKML as a separate patch.

It's not a big deal. I could make this a two step process, and send
these as my "for-next" patches so that people (including the authors of
the patch) know that I'm sending them upstream.

-- Steve