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  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:   Sat, 10 Dec 2022 09:23:28 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <>
To:     Willy Tarreau <>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <>,
        netdev <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Add support for epoll min wait time

>>> This last patch fixes a bug introduced by the 5th one. Why not squash it
>>> instead of purposely introducing a bug then its fix ? Or maybe it was
>>> just overlooked when you sent the PR ?
>> I didn't want to rebase it, so I just put the fix at the end. Not that
>> important imho, only issue there was an ltp case getting a wrong error
>> value. Hence didn't deem it important enough to warrant a rebase.
> OK. I tend to prefer making sure that a bisect session can never end up
> in the middle of a patch set for a reason other than a yet-undiscovered
> bug, that's why I was asking.

If the bug in question is a complete malfunction, or a crash for
example, then I would certainly have squashed and rebased. But since
this one is really minor - checking for the return value in an error
condition, I didn't see it as important enough to do that. It's not
something you'd run into at runtime, except if you were running LTP...

Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists