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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:47:12 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 005/491] ARM/UNIPHIER ARCHITECTURE: Use fallthrough; On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 02:37:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > As I have suggested a few times, better still > would be to have a mechanism for scripted patches > applied possibly as single treewide patch. > > Likely applied only at an -rc1. > > The stated negatives to a treewide mechanism > have been difficulty to backport to -stable. Any time we do a massive, disruptive change to the code base, it's going to cause problems to -stable. It means that bug fix patches won't necessarily auto-apply, and some will require manual fixups afterwards Given that this change doesn't really fix any bugs, I'd have to ask the question --- is it *worth* it? We really need to apply a certain amount of cost/benefit analysis around this. If it were really important, the thing we could do is to apply a single treewide patch at some point after the merge window. I'd suggest after -rc2, myself, but reasonable people can differ. And then, if it were *really* important we could run the same script on the stable kernels. But for changing "/* fallthrough */" to "fallthrough;" Does this ***really*** matter? Why are we tying ourselves up in knots trying to do this all at once? - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists