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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 16:45:38 -0300
From:   "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <>
To:     Johannes Berg <>,,
Cc:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Anton Ivanov <>,
        Richard Weinberger <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] um: Improve panic notifiers consistency and

On 09/08/2022 16:08, Johannes Berg wrote:
> [...]
>> Perfect, thank you! Let me take the opportunity to ask you something I'm
>> asking all the maintainers involved here - do you prefer taking the
>> patch through your tree, or to get it landed with the whole series, at
>> once, from some maintainer?
> Hm. I don't think we'd really care, but so far I was thinking - since
> it's a series - it'd go through some appropriate tree all together. If
> you think it should be applied separately, let us know.
> johannes

For me, it would be easier if maintainers pick the patches into their
-next/-fixes trees when they think the patch is good enough, but some
maintainers complained that prefer the whole series approach (and some
others are already taking the patches into their trees).

Given that, in case you do have a linux-um tree and feel OK with that, I
appreciate if you merge it, so I can remove the patch in next iteration.
If you prefer the whole series approach, OK as well, your call =)



Powered by blists - more mailing lists