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  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:	Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:21:57 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <>
To:	David Miller <>
CC:	<>, <>,
	<>, <>,
	<>, <>,
	<>, <>
Subject: Re: [net-next 05/15] i40e: add a comment on barrier and fix panic
 on reset

On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 15:12 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg Rose <>
> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:17:35 -0800
> > Yes, it's apparent that two different internal patches were compressed
> > together.  If its unacceptable to do this then I'll speak to Jeff about
> > splitting them.
> I won't reject the entire pull request on account of this, but please
> don't do this in the future.

I don't understand this.  You don't want to see patches that are known
to introduce regressions, and you expect people to squash together known
buggy patches with their subsequent fix-ups before submitting.

So, if a Change-Id is supposed to refer back to an 'original' version of
a patch/commit, shouldn't there sometimes be more than one of them in
the version that goes upstream?  You do something very similar yourself
sometimes, with upstream references in stable backports.


Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists