linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sysctl tree with the mm-nonmm-unstable 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20250723091028.33fa0ba1@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 09:10:28 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Joel Granados <joel.granados@...nel.org>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Feng Tang
 <feng.tang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sysctl tree with the
 mm-nonmm-unstable tree

Hi Joel,

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 11:58:48 +0200 Joel Granados <joel.granados@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I double checked these, and they seem ok from the sysctl side.
> 
> @Stephen: Do you prefer an actual acknowledgement that everything is
> good? Or would you prefer no answer to these merge conflict advisories?
> I personally, always make sure that things look sane, but always feel
> that sending out the ACK is a bit of a waste.

Yeah, I generally assume everything is OK unless told otherwise, so the
ACK is not necessary.  Though sometimes I express my doubt in my own
solution (I might say something like "I fixed it up (I hope/think ...")
and then it is nice to know either way.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped