linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ktest: Updates for 5.2

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]

Message-ID: <20190515201002.45c9d5cc@oasis.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 20:10:02 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        John Warthog9 Hawley <warthog9@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ktest: Updates for 5.2

On Wed, 15 May 2019 16:45:31 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:56 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > Updates to ktest.pl  
> 
> Your pull request is showing stale data.
> 
> >  - Handle meta data in GRUB_MENU
> >
> >  - Add variable to cusomize what return value the reboot code should return.  
> 
> These were already long merged, from your first pull request last Monday.

Bah! I forgot that I did that. I even saw the tag I sent you last time
and that didn't even hit to me that I already sent these.

I do a short log on what I plan on sending and write up the change log
based on this.

I should have done a commit diff on your upstream tree and not just
base my pull request on where I started with your tree.

> 
> See
> 
>   68253e718c27 ("Merge tag 'ktest-v5.1' of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-ktest")
> 
> and your own pull request
> 
>   Message-ID: <20190506133837.55832171@...dalf.local.home>
> 

Yeah, do you want me to make a new message, where it doesn't repeat the
previous pull? It will still have the same sha1 head, as nothing should
have changed, as its based on the same commit as that last pull.

-- Steve