linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 03/86] Revert "ftrace: Use preemption model accessors for trace header printout"

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231107183425.2f8b98a1@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Tue, 7 Nov 2023 18:34:25 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        paulmck@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, jon.grimm@....com,
        bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        bristot@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
        anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, mattst88@...il.com,
        krypton@...ich-teichert.org, David.Laight@...LAB.COM,
        richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/86] Revert "ftrace: Use preemption model
 accessors for trace header printout"

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 18:31:54 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 15:23:05 -0800
> Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Or would you prefer these not be reverted (and reapplied) at all -- just fixed
> > as you describe here?  
> 
> Yes, exactly that.
> 

Note, a revert usually means, "get rid of something because it's broken", it
shouldn't be used for "I'm implementing this differently, and need to
remove the old code first"

For the latter case, just remove what you don't need for the reason why
it's being removed. Reverting commits is confusing, because when you see a
revert in a git log, you think that commit was broken and needed to be taken
out.

-- Steve