linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree

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: <ZScbKPQur2qao5Gf@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:01:13 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic
 tree


* Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:

> >>> Peter, what's the verdict - do you want to rebase it, or leave it 
> >>> as-is?
> >>
> >> Ah, I looked into doing this, but tip/locking/core has since grown a 
> >> bunch of patches and has a merge commit -- I talked to Ingo yesterday 
> >> and he proposed just queueing a fix on top instead of doing a full 
> >> rebase.
> >>
> >> Ingo, that still your preferred solution?
> > 
> > Yeah, that would be the best solution IMO - it's not like there's any 
> > real prospect of someone bisecting futex2 patch-enablement commits on 
> > Alpha ... and the bisection distance isn't particularly large either in 
> > any case.
> 
> OK, works for me. I'll keep my branch as-is, and just ensure it gets sent 
> out after locking/core has been pulled by Linus.

Thank you!

	Ingo