netdev - Re: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40

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]

Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 01:11:19 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40

James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> writes:

> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 00:03 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
>> 
>> > I agree with Linus's notion in this thread though, a core kernel change should 
>> > generally not worry about hooking up rare-arch system calls (concentrate on the 
>> > architectures that get tested most) - those are better enabled gradually 
>> > anyway.
>> 
>> The way I read it he was complaining about my having parisc bits and
>> asking for my branch to be merged before the parisc bits had been
>> merged.  Which I credit as a fair complaint.  If I am going to depend on
>> other peoples trees I should wait.
>> 
>> At the same time when I am busy looking for every possible source of
>> trouble and putting code into net-next to detect pending conflicts,
>> and when maintainers complain when I ask for review that my patches
>> conflict with their patches.  Being a contentious developer I am
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^ conscientious
I didn't realize it was possible to make that typo.

>> inclined to do something.
>
> Right ... and the problem is that someone has to care, because the
> conflict will show up in linux-next.  I think Stephen Rothwell would
> appreciate us making his life easier rather than leaving it to him to
> sort out the problems.
>
>> Now that the reality has sunk in that it means waiting for other peoples
>> code to be merged before I request for my changes to be merged I don't
>> think I will structure a tree that way again while I remember.
>
> Right.   This is quite a common occurrence in SCSI (mostly changes
> entangled with block or libata).  If you don't feel comfortable running
> a postmerge tree, just send me the bits and I'll do it (after all it
> works either way around: I can pull in the syscalls and depend on your
> tree rather than vice versa).

Well for the moment I don't see too many problems.  I sent another pull
request to Linus earlier today now that your changes are in.  So I am
hoping either Linus will pull my tree or someone will educate me on what
he will Linus will accept.

Right now my tree is tested and in a good state.  Heck I'm running it
to send this email.  So I am reluctant to change anything without clear
feedback.

James when you refer to a postmerge tree what are the dynamics/semantics
usually associated with that?  Is this a tree that gets pulled a couple
of times?  Once with the non-conflicting bits.  Another time when the
bits it depends on have been merged?  Or is this a tree that gets pulled
after the merge window entirely?

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html