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: <20220405092046.465ff7e5@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:20:46 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@...abs.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/1] wfx: get out from the staging area

On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:16:58 +0300 Kalle Valo wrote:
> Sure, that would technically work. But I just think it's cleaner to use
> -rc1 (or later) as the baseline for an immutable branch. If the baseline
> is an arbitrary commit somewhere within merge windows commits, it's more
> work for everyone to verify the branch is suitable.
> 
> Also in general I would also prefer to base -next trees to -rc1 or newer
> to make the bisect cleaner. The less we need to test kernels from the
> merge window (ie. commits after the final release and before -rc1) the
> better.
> 
> But this is just a small wish from me, I fully understand that it might
> be too much changes to your process. Wanted to point out this anyway.

Forwarded!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ