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 <>
To:     Steven Rostedt <>
Cc:     Ankur Arora <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, David.Laight@...LAB.COM,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/86] Revert "ftrace: Use preemption model
 accessors for trace header printout"

Steven Rostedt <> writes:

> On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 18:31:54 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 15:23:05 -0800
>> Ankur Arora <> 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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists