linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL afs: Development for 5.4

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:49:22 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL afs: Development for 5.4

David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> > However, I was close to unpulling it again. It has a merge commit with
> > this merge message:
> > 
> >     Merge remote-tracking branch 'net/master' into afs-next
> > 
> > and that simply is not acceptable.
> 
> Apologies - I meant to rebase that away.  There was a bug fix to rxrpc in
> net/master that didn't get pulled into your tree until Saturday.

Actually, waiting for all outstanding fixes to get merged and then rebasing
might not be the right thing here.  The problem is that there are fixes in
both trees: afs fixes go directly into yours whereas rxrpc fixes go via
networking and I would prefer to base my patches on both of them for testing
purposes.  What's the preferred method for dealing with that?  Base on a merge
of the lastest of those fixes in each tree?

David