netdev - Re: [GIT PULL] virtio: last minute fixup

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:   Wed, 11 May 2022 02:22:58 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        mie@...l.co.jp
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] virtio: last minute fixup

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:23:11AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 5:24 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > A last minute fixup of the transitional ID numbers.
> > Important to get these right - if users start to depend on the
> > wrong ones they are very hard to fix.
> 
> Hmm. I've pulled this, but those numbers aren't exactly "new".
> 
> They've been that way since 5.14, so what makes you think people
> haven't already started depending on them?

Yes they have been in the header but they are not used by *Linux* yet.
My worry is for when we start using them and then someone backports
the patches without backporting the macro fix.
Maybe we should just drop these until there's a user, but I am
a bit wary of a step like this so late in the cycle.

> And - once again - I want to complain about the "Link:" in that commit.
> 
> It points to a completely useless patch submission. It doesn't point
> to anything useful at all.
> 
> I think it's a disease that likely comes from "b4", and people decided
> that "hey, I can use the -l parameter to add that Link: field", and it
> looks better that way.
> 
> And then they add it all the time, whether it makes any sense or not.
> 
> I've mainly noticed it with the -tip tree, but maybe that's just
> because I've happened to look at it.
> 
> I really hate those worthless links that basically add zero actual
> information to the commit.
> 
> The "Link" field is for _useful_ links. Not "let's add a link just
> because we can".
> 
>                            Linus


OK I will stop doing this.
I thought they are handy for when there are several versions of the
patch. It helps me make sure I applied the latest one. Saving the
message ID of the original mail in some other way would also be ok.
Any suggestions for a better way to do this?

-- 
MST