linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal management updates for v5.4-rc1

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:   Fri, 27 Sep 2019 11:34:56 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal management updates for v5.4-rc1

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:08 AM Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> One thing to mention is that, all the patches have been tested in
> linux-next for weeks, but there is a conflict detected, because
> upstream has took commit eaf7b46083a7e34 ("docs: thermal: add it to the
> driver API") from jc-docs tree while I'm keeping a wrong version of the
> patch, so I just rebased my tree to fix this.

Why do I have to say this EVERY single release?

A conflict is not a reason to rebase. Conflicts happen. They happen a
lot. I deal with them, and it's usually trivial.

If you feel it's not trivial, just describe what the resolution is,
rather than rebasing. Really.

Rebasing for a random conflict (particularly in documentation, for
chrissake!) is like using an atomic bomb to swat a fly.  You have all
those downsides, and there are basically _no_ upsides. It only makes
for more work for me because I have to re-write this email for the
millionth time, and that takes longer and is more aggravating than the
conflict would have taken to just sort out.

                   Linus