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: <6d282271-25fa-4ed9-9748-df3705f9d5fb@leemhuis.info>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 14:22:27 +0100
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Petr Tesařík
 <petr@...arici.cz>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug
 validation

On 01.03.24 09:41, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Add a second document on bisecting regressions explaining the whole
> process from beginning to end -- while also describing how to validate
> if a problem is still present in mainline.  This "two in one" approach
> is possible, as checking whenever a bug is in mainline is one of the
> first steps before performing a bisection anyway and thus needs to be
> described. Due to this approach the text also works quite nicely in
> conjunction with Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst, as it
> covers all typical cases where users will need to build a kernel in
> exactly the same order.
> [...]
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
> index ed8a629e59c86a..c53bb6e36291b8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
> @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
> -=================================================

Just saw that, that line obviously was not meant to be removed. Sorry.

Jonathan, in case you consider merging this "soon", as suggested
yesterday by  Vegard, could you please fix this up? Otherwise I'll fix
this with v3.

Ciao, Thorsten

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ