linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] FPGA DFL Changes for 5.12

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:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:55:24 -0800
From:   Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>,
        "linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, moritzf@...gle.com,
        Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>,
        Zheng Yongjun <zhengyongjun3@...wei.com>,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
        "Gerlach, Matthew" <matthew.gerlach@...el.com>,
        Sonal Santan <sonal.santan@...inx.com>,
        Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
        Richard Gong <richard.gong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] FPGA DFL Changes for 5.12


On 1/11/21 6:54 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:40:24AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
>> On 1/10/21 10:57 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:43:54AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/21 9:05 AM, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 07:46:29AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/7/21 8:09 AM, Tom Rix wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/21 8:37 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is a resend of the previous (unfortunately late) patchset of
>>>>>>>> changes for FPGA DFL.
>>>>>>> Is there something I can do to help ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am paid to look after linux-fpga, so i have plenty of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some ideas of what i am doing now privately i can do publicly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. keep linux-fpga sync-ed to greg's branch so linux-fpga is normally in a pullable state.
>>>>> Is it not? It currently points to v5.11-rc1. If I start applying patches
>>>>> that require the changes that went into Greg's branch I can merge.
>>>> I mean the window between when we have staged patches and when they go into Greg's branch.
>>>>
>>>> We don't have any now, maybe those two trival ones.
>>>>
>>>> Since Greg's branch moves much faster than ours, our staging branch needs to be rebased regularly until its merge.
>>> Ick, no!  NEVER rebase a public branch.  Why does it matter the speed of
>>> my branch vs. anyone elses?  Git handles merges very well.
>>>
>>> Just like Linus's branches move much faster than mine, and I don't
>>> rebase my branches, you shouldn't rebase yours.
>>>
>>> Becides, I'm only taking _PATCHES_ for fpga changes at the moment, no
>>> git pulls, so why does it matter at all for any of this?
>>>
>>> What is the problem you are trying to solve here?
>> This 5.12 fpga patchset not making it into 5.11.
> Ok, but isn't it the responsibility of the submitter to make sure they
> apply properly when sending them out?
>
>> At some point before the 5.11 window, I tried it on next and it failed to merge.
>>
>> This points to needing some c/i so it does not happen again.
> "again"?  Merges and the like are a totally normal thing and happen all
> the time, I still fail to understand what you are trying to "solve" for
> here...

What can I do to help make your merges as easy as possible ?

Does the patchwork infra Moritz was speaking of earlier need fixing help?

Any other things ?

Tom

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>