linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL]: Generic phy updates for v6.4

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZFPywqdpgESLD46Z@matsya>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 23:30:34 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Phy <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL]: Generic phy updates for v6.4

On 04-05-23, 10:23, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 8:31 AM Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Sorry between vacation and travel, this was missed.
> >
> > No worries we have process to deal with this, so this shall go in as
> > fixes.. I will do the needful shortly
> 
> You need to do it *now*.

It was already done a bit ago and applied to my fixes and should be in
-next tomorrow. I will wait a day before sending you fixes update.

> You should never have sent the pull request to me in the first place
> if you hadn't checked the status in linux-next.
> 
> The point of linux-next is to find failures. And if you don't then
> *care* about the failures, then it has all become  entirely pointless,
> and it's effectively the same as if it had never been there in the
> first place.
> 
> So this needs to get fixed *PRONTO*, and it needs to never ever happen again.

Ack, agree I should have paid it more attention. Between vacation and
travel and stuff I have missed it this time, will ensure this doesn't
happen again.

> 
> Because if it does happen, I will consider your code to effectively
> never have been in linux-next, and thus just not be an option for
> pulling.
> 
> This isn't debatable. You don't put things in linux-next, ignore the
> reports, and then send things upstream anyway.
> 
> If you don't have time to check the status of your tree in linux-next,
> you don't have the time to do a pull request. That's just how it
> works.
> 
>                       Linus

-- 
~Vinod