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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists