linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/apic for v6.18-rc1

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: <20251006122857.GAaOO2CX8vkmVw_4Ya@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 14:28:57 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/apic for v6.18-rc1

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 01:50:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sept 2025 at 03:28, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> >
> > this branch contains two big features because it was deemed a better idea
> > to merge them into one.
> 
> Ugh. I really wish that hadn't been done. I would much rather have
> seen separate SEV and apic branches.
> 
> And I don't see the _point_. Yes, I see a conflict resolution. An
> absolutely trivial one. So mixing up the SEV branch and the APIC side
> seems to have had no actual reason or much commonality.
> 
> Oh well. I've taken this, but it really just seems ugly and pointless.
> 
> If there was a real *reason* for merging those branches, it sure as
> hell isn't explained in said merge. That just has the "fix conflict"
> explanation, and as mentioned that seems a really really bad reason.

Lemme CC mingo - maybe he had something else in mind which I'm not
seeing...

Sorry for the confusion.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette