linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the device-mapper tree

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: <Zo_mnW5NcRBkWejT@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:05:17 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the device-mapper tree

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:16:20AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/10/24 8:17 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > The following commit is also in the block tree as a different commit
> > (but the same patch):
> > 
> >   e87621ac68fe ("dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()")
> > 
> > This is commit
> > 
> >   ae7e965b36e3 ("dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()")
> > 
> > in the block tree.

Hi Stephen,

I've fixed this.  But FYI, you didn't send mail to Mikulas who was the
committer in this instance.

> Looks like the dm tree is re-applying patches yesterday rather
> than pulling in the dependency?
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-6.11&id=e87621ac68fec9086d9f0af4fe96594dd8e07fbb
> 
> why?

Really good question.

Mikulas has been handling DM for the 6.11 development cycle.  But I've
helped answer question and such along the way.  We actually had a
meeting on Tuesday to discuss outstanding patches (in patchwork) and
specifically discussed this very patch.  At the time I said I would
get with you to make sure you were the one to pick up Damien's 5
patches (which included what is now commit e87621ac68fe in block).  I
specifically said that the entire series should go through block
because even if DM picked up the one "dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()"
it'd cause problems because block would then depend on DM for a simple
prep commit needed for later a patch in series.

Anyway, I later saw you had already picked up Damien's series and had
no need to reach out to you, I noted as much to a group chat at Red
Hat (Mikulas included).  So not really sure what happened.

Sorry for the noise/trouble.

Mike