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]

Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:08:44 -0500
From:   "Steve Wise" <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
To:     "'David Miller'" <davem@...emloft.net>
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


> >> > 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.

For the maintainers, yes.  But it avoids setting up k.o accounts and git
repos for each device driver maintainer that has this issue.

> 
> 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.
> 

Yes, and that would still be the case, from my understanding:  Instead of
each driver having a k.o. signed git repo, we ask the maintainers to stage
this common branch that both maintainers pull from into their -next
branches/repos.


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

I meant using rc-1 for the current release when submitting these shared
commits for the _following merge window_.

Steve.