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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 07 Nov 2023 16:12:52 -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 03/86] Revert "ftrace: Use preemption model
 accessors for trace header printout"


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

> 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.

Ack that. And, agree, it did feel pretty odd to revert so many good commits.
I guess in that sense it makes sense to minimize the number of reverts.

There are some that I suspect I will have to revert. Will detail specifically
why they are being reverted.

Thanks
--
ankur