linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.11-rc5

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: <CAHk-=wj1Oo9-g-yuwWuHQZU8v=VAsBceWCRLhWxy7_-QnSa1Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:23:00 +0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.11-rc5

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 at 02:54, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> Hi Linus, big one this time...

Yeah, no, enough is enough. The last pull was already big.

This is too big, it touches non-bcachefs stuff, and it's not even
remotely some kind of regression.

At some point "fix something" just turns into development, and this is
that point.

Nobody sane uses bcachefs and expects it to be stable, so every single
user is an experimental site.

The bcachefs patches have become these kinds of "lots of development
during the release cycles rather than before it", to the point where
I'm starting to regret merging bcachefs.

If bcachefs can't work sanely within the normal upstream kernel
release schedule, maybe it shouldn't *be* in the normal upstream
kernel.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

               Linus