linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 5.10

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:31:20 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 5.10

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:40:11AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David,
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:25:02 +0200 David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mishaps:
> > 
> > - commit 62cf5391209a ("btrfs: move btrfs_rm_dev_replace_free_srcdev
> >   outside of all locks") is a rebase leftover after the patch got
> >   merged to 5.9-rc8 as a466c85edc6f ("btrfs: move
> >   btrfs_rm_dev_replace_free_srcdev outside of all locks"), the
> >   remaining part is trivial and the patch is in the middle of the
> >   series so I'm keeping it there instead of rebasing
> 
> And yet, this entire pull request has been rebased since what was in
> linux-next on Tuesday (and what would still be there today except I
> dropped it because of several conflicts) ...  it looks like it was
> rebased a week ago, but then never included in your "for-next" branch.
> So I supposed it has had your internal testing, at least.

I was on vacation last week and rebased the to-be-pulled branch on top
of v5.9-rc8 so there are at least a few days before the pull request is
sent.

The patch queue was feature frozen for 2 weeks, there should be no
surprises whether it's rc7 or rc8, but the latter contained a corruption
fix so it was desirable to rebase the development queue. Due to my
limited time I forgot to update the for-next branches, sorry. We do
enough internal testing of course.