linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL 5.11-rc8] LED fix

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:   Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:20:00 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 5.11-rc8] LED fix

Hi!

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 12:31 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> >
> > 92bf22614b21 is my rc7, and it is parent of the commit I want you to
> > apply.
> 
> Oh, right you are. I looked at your leds-cleanup-for-pavel branch for
> some reason, which was much older.
> 
> Anyway, it does the remote lookup with git ls-remote, and doesn't find
> any matching ref for that 92bf22614 commit you gave it as a base, so
> that's why it complains. You _could_ fix that by just pushing all the
> tags you have locally to your remote too.
> 
> Have you changed your behavior wrt git request-pull lately? Because
> that whole model you use is broken.

This was really one-off and I found the git messages quite confusing.
> 
> The "end" commit shouldn't be my tag (and it shouldn't be a SHA1). It
> should be *your* branch name.
> 
> So what you *should* have used is something like
> 
>     git request-pull master
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pavel/linux-leds.git/
> for-rc8-5.11
> 
> (assuming "master" is the upstream branch - which would be my
> v5.11-rc7) without any odd SHA games or anything like that.

Yes, pushing master should work. I tried to fall back to SHAs as I
find them less confusing.

Best regards,
								Pavel

-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (196 bytes)