linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "init/console: Use ttynull as a fallback when there is no console"

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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjKt0Xec69iMK18h6-BNZ+3vWR-zswQtip=Y0unK0K56g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 09:48:12 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shreyas Joshi <shreyas.joshi@...mp.com>,
        shreyasjoshi15@...il.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
        Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "init/console: Use ttynull as a fallback when
 there is no console"

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:45 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
> Shouldn't it have Fixes tag along with Reported-by ones and explanation what
> was the actual problem reported?

No need for a "Fixes" tag for a revert - the commit it reverts _is_
the thing it fixes, so that's implicitly there.

But yes, a reported-by with an explanation of the actual case that
broke would be a very good idea, so that the revert documents the
particular case that caused it, not just the "big picture" case.

           Linus