netdev - Re: interdependencies with cxgb4 and iw

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: <20180320.104046.957152577341740274.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     swise@...ngridcomputing.com
Cc:     rajur@...lsio.com, dledford@...hat.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        jgg@...pe.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bharat@...lsio.com,
        ganeshgr@...lsio.com, rahul.lakkireddy@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: interdependencies with cxgb4 and iw_cxgb4

From: "Steve Wise" <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:47:04 -0500

>> From: Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
>> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:50:57 -0500
>> 
>> > Let me ask a dumb question:  Why cannot one of the maintaners pull the
>> > commit from the other mainainer's git repo directly?  IE why have this
>> > third trusted/signed git repo that has to be on k.o, from which both
>> > maintainers pull?  If one of you can pull it in via a patch series,
>> > like you do for all other patches, and then notify the other
>> > maintainer to pull it from the first maintainers' repo if the series
>> > meets the requirements that it needs to be in both maintainers'
>> > repositories?  This avoids adding more staging git repos on k.o.  But
>> > probably I'm missing something...
>> 
>> Tree A may not want all of tree B's changes, and vice versa.
> 
> I was thinking the special commit would go into a branch that was based on,
> say rc1 or rc2 of one of the maintainers.  Then both maintainers pull that
> into their -next branch.  Would that work?

That makes things more complicated.

The simplest design is that "identical" commits end up in both the
RDMA and the net-next tree.

Then it absolutely doesn't matter whose tree goes into Linus's first.

Also, we should not be merging "merge window" code after -rc1.  "-rc1"
means the merge window is closed.