linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] kunit: more assertion reworking

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:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 01:20:21 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     brendanhiggins@...gle.com, davidgow@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] kunit: more assertion reworking

On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 8:00 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> While I have you here, any thoughts on how to coordinate the change?

My bad, I forgot to reply to this, sorry. I noticed it again when
merging 6.1-rc1 into our branch.

Normally I fix the issues when I merge back from Linus. Since we
intend to keep the CI green on every PR, I added the fix for this in
the merge itself.

In any case, to clarify, the `rust` branch in GitHub is just where we
placed a lot of things that we wanted to eventually submit (and some
that should not, e.g. the GitHub CI files). We will be minimizing the
differences w.r.t. upstream in that branch by preparing proper patches
from scratch and submitting them through `rust-next` and other trees,
and eventually remove it (or reusing the name for the fixes branch
since that is the name other trees use, but we will see).

Cheers,
Miguel