linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with Linus' 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]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:07:20 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with Linus' tree

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:59 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> At what point does it become worth while to do a back merge of v5.2-rc4
> (I think the last of the SPDX changes went into there) to take care of
> all these (rather than Linus having to edit each of these files himself
> during the merge window)?

For just trivial conflicts like this that have no code, I really would
prefer no backmerges.

That said, I would tend to trust the due diligence that Thomas, Greg &
co have done, and am wondering why the scsi tree ends up having
different SPDX results in the first place..

             Linus