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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251006210919.GIaOQv_6AwhmPRu7fr@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 23:09:19 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/apic for v6.18-rc1

On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 08:59:09AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So the biggest issue really was just the explanations. Both the
> explanation for why the merge happened in the first place, but then
> also the resulting explanation in the pull request.
> 
> Due to the merge, I feel that the explanations in *my* merge ends up
> being less than great. I think it would have been good to just have
> separate explanations for the apic init thing and the SEV parts,
> because they seem entirely independent.
> 
> But maybe they weren't as independent as I think they are, and there
> was some deeper reason for the merge that just was never explained.

So there was some confusion with urgent stuff we send you during the -rc
phase, see

85df1cd15ff5 ("Merge branch 'x86/urgent' into x86/apic, to resolve conflict")

but it is still not clear to me - maybe I'm missing it - why mingo did those
merges... when I merge the topic branches, rerere works just fine and there's
no need to prematurely resolve conflicts and then make them permanent.
Especially if things might change later...

> Basically, a conflict is never a reason for a merge. That would be
> unphysical: conflicts happen _due_ to a merge, so a merge is the
> reason for a conflict, not the other way around.
> 
> If the merge was done for some linux-next or testing purpose, then the
> merging should have been done in a branch _for_ testing or linux-next
> integration, and then there would be a reason  ("merge for testing /
> linux-next").

Right. There was a x86/merge branch in the past for similar reasons...

> And if the merge is because of some future conflict resolution, then
> that should be stated too ("This conflict is so complicated that we
> don't trust that Linus will get it right, so we're merging it for him.
> Linus needs all the help he can get, and he's not always at his
> sharpest").

Bah, there's no need for that. That is basically done by: "Hey Linus, here's
the merge I've done, the end result should be like this..."

:-)

> But "merge due to a conflict" is simply never a reason in itself. It's
> like saying "The sun came up because I woke up". That's not how the
> world works.

Right, like I said, there might be a reason for this which I'm not aware of.
But for the future, I'll pay attention and keep such branches separate and
give you the gory merging details + patch tetris instead so that you can have
some of the fun too. :-)

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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