* linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
@ 2012-11-27 23:16 Stephen Rothwell
2012-11-27 23:28 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-11-27 23:45 ` Casey Schaufler
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2012-11-27 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Casey Schaufler
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 465 bytes --]
Hi James,
The security tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of
your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey's tree after he merged in
your tree from yesterday.
Just for your consideration.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-11-27 23:16 linux-next: unusual update of the security tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2012-11-27 23:28 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-11-27 23:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-11-27 23:45 ` Casey Schaufler
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2012-11-27 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Casey Schaufler, Linus
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]
Hi James,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:16:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> The security tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
> looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
> Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of
> your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey's tree after he merged in
> your tree from yesterday.
If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag
to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always
has you as the committer (and maybe SOB).
Linus, does that make sense in general for maintainers?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-11-27 23:28 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2012-11-27 23:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-11-27 23:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2012-11-27 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: James Morris, linux-next, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Casey Schaufler
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag
> to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always
> has you as the committer (and maybe SOB).
>
> Linus, does that make sense in general for maintainers?
No. That just hides the real problem - back-merges of random points in history.
Don't do them, people. EVER.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-11-27 23:16 linux-next: unusual update of the security tree Stephen Rothwell
2012-11-27 23:28 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2012-11-27 23:45 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-11-28 0:01 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Casey Schaufler @ 2012-11-27 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: James Morris, linux-next, linux-kernel, Casey Schaufler
On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> The security tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
> looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
> Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of
> your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey's tree after he merged in
> your tree from yesterday.
I *thought* that I had used the same procedures that worked before.
In fact, I still do think that, but if it's a problem I can purge my
smack-next tree and start over.
James, the two changes that came from smack-next are pretty minor. I
don't think you should hesitate to back them out if that helps.
>
> Just for your consideration.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-11-27 23:30 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2012-11-27 23:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2012-11-27 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: James Morris, linux-next, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Casey Schaufler
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 874 bytes --]
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:30:31 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag
> > to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always
> > has you as the committer (and maybe SOB).
> >
> > Linus, does that make sense in general for maintainers?
>
> No. That just hides the real problem - back-merges of random points in history.
>
> Don't do them, people. EVER.
I was also thinking about the case where a developer does work based on
the maintainer's published tree and then the maintainer pulls that work
sometime later (when his published tree has not been updated in the mean
time).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-11-27 23:45 ` Casey Schaufler
@ 2012-11-28 0:01 ` Stephen Rothwell
[not found] ` <CA+55aFwdk9FiW4u_f-Dq6+jtuD9kY-zBqPpMVc2OHJFnzaAbzA@mail.gmail.com>
2012-12-06 13:25 ` James Morris
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2012-11-28 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Casey Schaufler; +Cc: James Morris, linux-next, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3660 bytes --]
Hi Casey,
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > The security tree
> > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
> > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
> > Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of
> > your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey's tree after he merged in
> > your tree from yesterday.
>
> I *thought* that I had used the same procedures that worked before.
> In fact, I still do think that, but if it's a problem I can purge my
> smack-next tree and start over.
>
> James, the two changes that came from smack-next are pretty minor. I
> don't think you should hesitate to back them out if that helps.
This is the shortlog for the changes in the security tree between
yesterday and today;
Casey Schaufler (32):
Commit 272cd7a8c67dd40a31ecff76a503bbb84707f757 introduced a change to the way rule lists are handled and reported in the smackfs filesystem. One of the issues addressed had to do with the termination of read requests on /smack/load. This change introduced a error in /smack/cipso, which shares some of the same list processing code.
Revert "Commit 272cd7a8c67dd40a31ecff76a503bbb84707f757 introduced"
Smack: smackfs cipso seq read repair
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Smack: recursive tramsmute
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Smack: allow for significantly longer Smack labels v4
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Smack: fix smack_new_inode bogosities
Smack: Maintainer Record
Smack: onlycap limits on CAP_MAC_ADMIN
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Smack: user access check bounds
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Smack: remove task_wait() hook.
Smack: setprocattr memory leak fix
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'for-1209'
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security into for-1211
Smack: use select not depends in Kconfig
Smack: create a sysfs mount point for smackfs
Rafal Krypa (2):
Smack: don't show empty rules when /smack/load or /smack/load2 is read
Smack: implement revoking all rules for a subject label
Tetsuo Handa (1):
gfp flags for security_inode_alloc()?
It's a bit of a mess :-(
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
[not found] ` <CA+55aFwdk9FiW4u_f-Dq6+jtuD9kY-zBqPpMVc2OHJFnzaAbzA@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2012-12-03 15:26 ` James Morris
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2012-12-03 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel, Casey Schaufler
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2012 4:01 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > This is the shortlog for the changes in the security tree between
> > yesterday and today;
>
> This is an excellent example of the kind of tree I will not pull from.
>
> There are more merges than actual work. No way, Jose.
Ugh, I somehow missed this thread last week.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-11-28 0:01 ` Stephen Rothwell
[not found] ` <CA+55aFwdk9FiW4u_f-Dq6+jtuD9kY-zBqPpMVc2OHJFnzaAbzA@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2012-12-06 13:25 ` James Morris
2012-12-06 16:25 ` Linus Torvalds
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2012-12-06 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Casey Schaufler, linux-next, linux-kernel, Linus Torvalds
Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what
people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Casey,
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > The security tree
> > > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
> > > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
> > > Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of
> > > your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey's tree after he merged in
> > > your tree from yesterday.
> >
> > I *thought* that I had used the same procedures that worked before.
> > In fact, I still do think that, but if it's a problem I can purge my
> > smack-next tree and start over.
> >
> > James, the two changes that came from smack-next are pretty minor. I
> > don't think you should hesitate to back them out if that helps.
>
> This is the shortlog for the changes in the security tree between
> yesterday and today;
>
> Casey Schaufler (32):
> Commit 272cd7a8c67dd40a31ecff76a503bbb84707f757 introduced a change to the way rule lists are handled and reported in the smackfs filesystem. One of the issues addressed had to do with the termination of read requests on /smack/load. This change introduced a error in /smack/cipso, which shares some of the same list processing code.
> Revert "Commit 272cd7a8c67dd40a31ecff76a503bbb84707f757 introduced"
> Smack: smackfs cipso seq read repair
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Smack: recursive tramsmute
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Smack: allow for significantly longer Smack labels v4
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Smack: fix smack_new_inode bogosities
> Smack: Maintainer Record
> Smack: onlycap limits on CAP_MAC_ADMIN
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Smack: user access check bounds
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Smack: remove task_wait() hook.
> Smack: setprocattr memory leak fix
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'for-1209'
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security
> Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security into for-1211
> Smack: use select not depends in Kconfig
> Smack: create a sysfs mount point for smackfs
>
> Rafal Krypa (2):
> Smack: don't show empty rules when /smack/load or /smack/load2 is read
> Smack: implement revoking all rules for a subject label
>
> Tetsuo Handa (1):
> gfp flags for security_inode_alloc()?
>
> It's a bit of a mess :-(
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
>
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-12-06 13:25 ` James Morris
@ 2012-12-06 16:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 21:27 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-12-06 23:21 ` James Morris
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2012-12-06 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Casey Schaufler, linux-next, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:25 AM, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what
> people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it.
Quite frankly, I really am not going to pull that. It has random crazy
merges for no reason what-so-ever. This is *exactly* the kind of stuff
I used to speak out against years ago, and I thought we had long since
put behind us. Do
git fetch git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
next
gitk ..FETCH_HEAD
from mainline to see what I'm talking about. It has all those random
merges interspersed with random sporadic development. This is not how
we make history make sense.
It looks like Casey has for the last year+ just had his own tree, done
his own thing, and then pulled from the 'next' branch of security at
random points to intermix his occasional commits with everything
else.So now all his sporadic commits are randomly intermixed together
with *everything* else that happened over the last year. It's kind of
the epitome of not-a-feature-branch.
There are 26 "normal" commits spread out over the year, coupled with
22 merges that have been done bi-weekly or something, and have
altogether brought in 13 *thousand* commits that have very little to
do with the 26 commits that are new work. And with many of the merges
done despite that development tree having *no* development in it of
its own, so you have those repeated "let's merge upstream code" pulls
that only add upstream code with no development in between.
This is the kind of development that should be kept private, and maybe
using a "git pull --rebase" to maintain the private commits on top of
whatever upstream. NOT be used to say "ok, I now have more than a year
of messy development history of 22 changes randomly interspersed with
the thirteen thousand commits that went into mainline during that
year+ time".
Or it should just have been a development branch that only did its own
development and never pulled from upstream.
Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-12-06 16:25 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2012-12-06 21:27 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-12-06 23:21 ` James Morris
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2012-12-06 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Casey Schaufler, linux-next, Linux Kernel Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 664 bytes --]
Hi James,
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:25:21 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
> frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
So to be explicit, I think you need to do this:
- tell as many people as possible that you are going to rebase
your tree
- reset your tree back to the point just before you pulled Casey's
tree (3f0cc6ae8662).
- Casey needs to rebase his tree on top of yours
- then after Casey has tested his tree again you can repull his
new tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-12-06 16:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 21:27 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2012-12-06 23:21 ` James Morris
2012-12-06 23:56 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-12-13 2:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2012-12-06 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Casey Schaufler, linux-next, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
> frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development
purposes.
And sorry, I should be checking the trees I pull from more carefully.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-12-06 23:21 ` James Morris
@ 2012-12-06 23:56 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-12-13 2:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Casey Schaufler @ 2012-12-06 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Stephen Rothwell, linux-next,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Casey Schaufler
On 12/6/2012 3:21 PM, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
>> frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
> AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development
> purposes.
>
> And sorry, I should be checking the trees I pull from more carefully.
I have messed up and believe that I understand my error and the
impact that it has had on others. I also believe that I understand
what I should be doing henceforth. Once I get the word from James
I will rebase my tree from his. I will stop doing merges except as
recommended.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-12-06 23:21 ` James Morris
2012-12-06 23:56 ` Casey Schaufler
@ 2012-12-13 2:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-12-14 3:11 ` James Morris
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2012-12-13 2:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Casey Schaufler, linux-next, Linux Kernel Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]
Hi James,
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
> > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
>
> AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development
> purposes.
>
> And sorry, I should be checking the trees I pull from more carefully.
Are you going to fix this before asking Linus to pull?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
2012-12-13 2:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2012-12-14 3:11 ` James Morris
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2012-12-14 3:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Casey Schaufler, linux-next, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
> > > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
> >
> > AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development
> > purposes.
> >
> > And sorry, I should be checking the trees I pull from more carefully.
>
> Are you going to fix this before asking Linus to pull?
Yes.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-12-14 3:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-11-27 23:16 linux-next: unusual update of the security tree Stephen Rothwell
2012-11-27 23:28 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-11-27 23:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-11-27 23:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-11-27 23:45 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-11-28 0:01 ` Stephen Rothwell
[not found] ` <CA+55aFwdk9FiW4u_f-Dq6+jtuD9kY-zBqPpMVc2OHJFnzaAbzA@mail.gmail.com>
2012-12-03 15:26 ` James Morris
2012-12-06 13:25 ` James Morris
2012-12-06 16:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 21:27 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-12-06 23:21 ` James Morris
2012-12-06 23:56 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-12-13 2:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-12-14 3:11 ` James Morris
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).