Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PULL] module and param | Date | Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:13:58 +1030 |
| |
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:33:16 +0200, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > [ Cut-and-paste reply: mentally just "sed s/9p/module/g" ] > > So for the merge window, I *really* want the development trees I pull > from explicitly verified some way. > > Putting a signed tag on there somewhere that actually signs the top > commit *and* mentions the repository and branch it is on (ie github) > is not wonderfully convenient, but it's at least relatively > straightforward (do I have a gpg key I can trust?).
I'm not sure if this paranoia is disproportionate or overdue. Hope I did it right (D1ADB8F1, signed by some other OzLabs folks).
Personally I would have thought that asking people to patch a gpg fingerprint into MAINTAINERS is more kernely than web of trust. I'll notice if someone else tries to patch their own in there.
Cheers, Rusty.
To git@github.com:rustyrussell/linux.git + 694136c...b1e4d20 master -> master (forced update) * [new tag] rusty@rustcorp.com.au-v3.1-2-gb1e4d20 -> rusty@rustcorp.com.au-v3.1-2-gb1e4d20 The following changes since commit c3b92c8787367a8bb53d57d9789b558f1295cc96:
Linux 3.1 (2011-10-24 09:10:05 +0200)
are available in the git repository at: git://github.com/rustyrussell/linux.git master
Jiri Kosina (1): kmod: prevent kmod_loop_msg overflow in __request_module()
Michal Schmidt (1): params: make dashes and underscores in parameter names truly equal
include/linux/moduleparam.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ init/main.c | 4 ++-- kernel/kmod.c | 4 +++- kernel/params.c | 21 ++++++++++++++------- 4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
| |