netdev - Re: [GIT PULL] Add support for epoll min wait time

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: <68cf6d34-037b-bf66-7c28-5bf6a65c494f@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sat, 10 Dec 2022 09:23:28 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
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