linux-kernel - Re: nolibc changes since 6.6-rc1 for linux-next

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: <f9695abc-f1f2-49e0-901b-41a078ec57c5@t-8ch.de>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:22:59 +0200
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nolibc changes since 6.6-rc1 for linux-next

Hi Willy, Paul,

On 2023-10-09 08:53:58+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 09:27:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> (...)
> > The other approach involves rebasing the "nolibc/next" stack
> > on top of the "nolibc/fixes" stack.
> 
> That was my initial expectation as well, it's much easier, preserves
> the patches ordering so it guarantees that all fixes are always present
> in -next and that there won't be conflicts when they're finally submitted.

The workflow Paul described indeed makes a lot of sense.

I can redo it this afternoon.

> [..]

> > While in the area, would the following (absolutely not urgent or even
> > particularly important) patch be a good idea?  This gets rid of a line
> > of noise from "git status" after running the tests.
> 
> Good idea, feel free to propose a patch ;-)

How about directly folding it into the original patch?
I can take care of that later today, too.

Thomas