linux-kernel - Re: i2c-host for v6.18

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: <aTWEDvlMo_Mghlim@shikoro>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2025 22:41:34 +0900
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: i2c-host for v6.18

> > Urgs, but this is highly problematic. I can't pull something based on
> > 6.18. Usually, things are based on -rc1 or something early to show Linus
> > that it has been in -next for a while. He won't pull something that is
> > less than 48 hours in public and so won't I.
> 
> Just a note that I merged the last few patches on Wednesday. So,
> if the 48 hour window applies, we are well within it.

Well, it is not strictly about 48 hours... I just picked the number
because all of the rebased patches were ~2 days old at the time I looked
at them.

> As I mentioned privately, I can split this into two pull requests
> and use the older reference for the earlier patches if that
> helps. To me it feels more like a formality, since those patches
> have already been in -next for a few weeks and were only rebased
> on top of v6.18.

But this is the key point: after rebasing, no one can see how long they
have been in -next. Especially not the person you ask to pull. This
doesn't look trustworthy. If you hadn't rebased, then one can easily see
that most patches have been in -next for weeks. And if then there are
some new patches on top which are simple enough (like adding an ID),
then the whole pull request probably still looks trustworthy.

> But I am happy to do whatever you prefer.

I prefer one pull request using the ref before the 6.18 rebase.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)