linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] RCU changes for v6.17

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: <ba898d9d-021b-40f5-9627-dce11e403fdc@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:24:12 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@...nel.org>, joelagnelf@...dia.com,
	frederic@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, urezki@...il.com,
	qiang.zhang1211@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com, rcu@...r.kernel.org, Tze-nan.Wu@...iatek.com,
	a.sadovnikov@...ras.ru
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] RCU changes for v6.17

On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 11:11:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 19:46, Neeraj Upadhyay
> <Neeraj.Upadhyay@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > This pull request contains the following branches:
> >
> > rcu-exp.23.07.2025 [..]
> 
> I've pulled this, but I do have a request (or two, really)..
> 
> The octopus merges look cool, but they have the problem that if there
> are subtle bugs introduced by interactions between branches, they are
> a pain to bisect. So in general, I advise people to avoid them.
> 
> But the *real* thing I note is that merges are more subtle than normal
> commits in the first place, and octopus merges are subtler still - and
> your have no explanation at all outside of the 'merge X Y and Z into
> ABC'.
> 
> Please write more of a commit message explaining what those branches
> *are* that you are merging.
> 
> Which is the second part of the request: when you ask me to merge "the
> following branches", the branch names are basically line noise. I'm
> not in the least interested in seeing what the date of a branch is.
> That adds no value.
> 
> So can you please instead describe the branches by what they do than
> by some internal branch name you used. I made up my own "names" for
> the sub-branches in the merge message, but it would be much nicer if
> you did it in the pull request.
> 
> So, for example, I changed "rcu-exp.23.07.2025" to be "Expedited grace
> period", which seems to be what that branch name was cryptically
> trying to say.

Apologies!  I missed the empty merge-commit commit log when reviewing
this pull request, and I should have spotted that.  :-(

As it happens, I will be sending the pull request for the v6.18 merge
window, so I will stop doing my usual octopus merges (hey, they *were*
cool!) and instead merge each branch separately, with each merge's commit
log giving a synopsis of the commits in the branch being merged.

If you have a best-practice series of merges example in mind, could you
please point me at it?

							Thanx, Paul