linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 04/86] Revert "preempt/dynamic: Introduce preemption model accessors"

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]

Date:   Tue, 07 Nov 2023 20:59:39 -0800
From:   Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        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 04/86] Revert "preempt/dynamic: Introduce preemption
 model accessors"


Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:

> On Tue,  7 Nov 2023 13:56:50 -0800
> Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> I know this is an RFC but I'll state it here just so that it is stated. All
> reverts need a change log description to why a revert happened, even if you
> are just cut and pasting the reason for every commit. That's because git
> commits need to be stand alone and not depend on information in other git
> commit change logs.

Ack. I will also take your suggestion in the other email and remove the
relevant code instead. Reverting is clearly the wrong mechanism for this.

And thanks for helping me with all of the process related issues.
Appreciate it.

--
ankur