linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] u64_stat: Remove the obsolete fetch

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: <Yv5v1E6mfpcxjnLV@linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:59:00 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] u64_stat: Remove the obsolete fetch_irq() variants

On 2022-08-18 09:02:00 [-0700], Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:27:06 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2022-08-17 11:27:45 [-0700], Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > What's the thinking on merging? 8 and 9 will get reposted separately 
> > > for net-next once the discussions are over?  
> > 
> > It depends on 2/9. So either it gets routed via -tip with your blessing
> > or a feature branch containing 2/9 on top of -rc1 so you can pull that
> > change and apply 8+9.
> > Just say what works best for you and I let tglx know ;)
> 
> Heh, I saw a message from Greg politely and informatively explaining 
> to someone how they have to structure their refactoring to avoid
> conflicts in linux-next. I should have saved it cause my oratorical
> skills are weak.

No need to explains, just say that you want to see the networking bits
only ;)

> No ack, I'd much rather you waited for after the next merge window 
> and queued this refactoring to net-next. Patch 9 is changing 70
> files in networking. Unless I'm missing something and this is time
> sensitive.

It started with the clean up of the mess that has been made in the merge
and then it went on a little.

Any opinion on 8/9? It could wait for the next merge window if you want
to avoid a feature branch to pull from.

Regarding 9/9. This is a clean up, which is possible after 8/9. It can
definitely be applied later.
I assume you want only see the networking bits so I would split the
other subsystem out. I guess instead the big net patch I split them on
per driver vendor basis + net/ subsys?

Sebastian