netdev - Re: [GIT PULL] Please Pull Mellanox Shared Code

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, 14 Jun 2016 20:34:19 +0300
From:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please Pull Mellanox Shared Code

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> He's doing what Linus requested from Mellanox.  They were instructed to
> identify all of the coming changes in the next release where patches
> sent through your tree and patches sent through my tree would have
> conflicts.  They were then instructed to make git commits that merged
> those changes and have both you and I pull them (please note "pull", not
> git am patches) so that we have the exact same commit hashes in our
> trees and git will do the right thing when your tree and my tree are
> merged in the next merge window.  As it turns out the conflicts are
> mainly in this firmware offset definition file.  They just put all of
> the needed changes in there in one commit.  I doubt they have individual
> patches here.

Doug,

The main comment was that the submission lacked posting of the actual
changes inline as patch/es along with a cover letter that gives the
background plus the URL for git pulling of this. In this case (4.8
shared code), the submission only touches the mlx5_ifc.c FW file and
indeed it makes sense to have only one patch that covers it all, in
prev/future cases we had/would have that in multiple patches.

Leon re-submitted that later today in the proper way

Or.

> This was a custom made patch who's sole purpose is to
> combine all the otherwise possibly conflicting changes in one place.
> I'm sure they could split it out into different commits, but they
> wouldn't be full commits, just the portion that applies to this firmware file