linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] fs idmapped updates for v6.2

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: <CAHk-=wj+tqv2nyUZ5T5EwYWzDAAuhxQ+-DA2nC9yYOTUo5NOPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:40:29 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] fs idmapped updates for v6.2

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 5:19 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Please note the tag contains all other branches for this cycle merged in.

Well, considering that the explanation basically assumed I had already
merged those (and I had), I wish you also had made the diffstat and
the shortlog reflect that.

As it was, now the diffstat and shortlog ends up containing not what
this last pull request brought in, but what they *all* brought in...

I'm also not super-happy with how ugly your history for this branch
was. You had literally merged the acl rework branch three times - at
different points of that branch.

Do we have other ugly history in the tree? Yes. But we've been getting
better. This was _not_ one of those "getting better" moments.

Oh well. I can see what you wanted to do, and I agree with the end
result, I just don't particularly like how this was done.

I've pulled it.

             Linus