linux-kernel - Re: linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on rk3288-veyron-jaq

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]

Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 10:29:49 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>
Cc:     Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        mgalka@...labora.com, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Matt Hart <matthew.hart@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on rk3288-veyron-jaq

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:13 AM Guillaume Tucker
<guillaume.tucker@...labora.com> wrote:

> This commit has now been reverted in mainline.  Would it be OK
> for you to rebase your for-next branch on v5.2-rc2 or cherry-pick
> the revert to avoid recurring bisections?

Sure I can do that, it's a one-off so why not. I rebased my
devel branch on -rc2.

> Ideally this should have been fixed or reverted in mainline
> before v5.2-rc1 was released, or even earlier when this was first
> found in -next on 13th May.  Unfortunately it was overlooked and
> then spread to other branches like yours.

Usually what we would want for development trees is to ignore
any errors coming from a commit on a release candidate
branch, like -rcN, as it is not directly under our control.

Yours,
Linus Walleij