linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bitmap changes for v6.0-rc1

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:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:16:29 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bitmap changes for v6.0-rc1

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 10:55:51AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 7:03 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull this patches. They spent more than a week in -next without
> > major problems. The only problem with warnings generated by cpumask_check(),
> > when robots do bisection, is fixed by moving the patch "cpumask: fix
> > checking valid cpu range" to the very end of the series.
> 
> So I appreciate the commentary about process just to explain what's going on.
> 
> But what I want for the merge message is a summary of what the pull
> actually *does* - the process commentary is good addition, but it's
> not useful for the merge commit message about what the merge actually
> brings in.
> 
> And for that, I do *not* want explanations like this:
> 
> > This branch is based on v6.0-rc4 and includes:
> >
> > drivers/base: Fix unsigned comparison to -1 in CPUMAP_FILE_MAX_BYTES
> > From Phil Auld
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220906203542.1796629-1-pauld@redhat.com/
> ...
> 
> where the explanations just point to external data.
> 
> Commit messages are supposed to be self-sufficient. External links can
> be acceptable as a "this has subtle issues that are too boring and
> extensive to explain here", but even then it's only for _additional_
> commentary, not a replacement for explaining what is going on.
> 
> And those external links aren't even that. They are literally just the
> "this is where the patches were posted originally". Not useful.
> 
> So I'm dropping this as not having enough explanations of why I should
> pull them. It has explanations, yes, but they are about secondary
> things, not about the actual expected improvements brought in by the
> pull.

OK, I'll resend shortly

Thanks,
Yury