linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] list private v2 & luo flb v9

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: <20251218130725.1b93a521c039ce121de62472@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:07:25 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: pratyush@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org, dmatlack@...gle.com,
 skhawaja@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, corbet@....net, kees@...nel.org,
 davidgow@...gle.com, pmladek@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, nicolas.frattaroli@...labora.com,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, tamird@...il.com, raemoar63@...il.com,
 graf@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] list private v2 & luo flb v9

On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 10:57:47 -0500 Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com> wrote:

> This series includes two separate workstreams. This is because FLB
> should be applied on top of list_private, as it uses some of its
> interfaces.
> 
> 1. List private v2 (first 3 patches) Previous version:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251126185725.4164769-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com
> For details, please read the cover letter from the previous submission.
> 
> v2 Changelog:
> - Added a Reviewed-by from David Gow.
> 
> 2. LUO FLB v9 (last 2 patches) Previous version:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251125225006.3722394-2-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com

Please, no.

This patch series is intended for the Linux kernel.  Your grandchildren
will read the above wondering "what did granddad do".  It's just lazy
for us to expect readers to have to chase down links to earlier
versions and then to figure out what changed and why we changed it,
etc, etc.

Let's give our audience a nice, self-contained and complete description
of the proposed changes which doesn't refer them to the minute details
of the ongoing development process.  A process which is utterly
uninteresting three years from now.

IOW, can we please have a complete and standalone description of *this
patchset* which doesn't refer to earlier obsolete stuff?

Thanks.