lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40
    From
    Date
    On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 17:33 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
    >
    > > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Eric W. Biederman
    > > <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> In a hopeless quest to avoid conflicts when merging a new system call
    > >> and wiring it up I have pulled in bits of net-next and the parisc tree.
    > >> You have already pulled the net-next bits. The parisc bits in my tree
    > >> are:
    > >
    > > Ok, this just means that I won't pull from you.
    >
    > Sure. I will try to be a little more patient and resend the pull
    > request after James has sent the pull request for the parisc tree.
    > At which point the only unique changes in my tree will be mine.

    Right ... effectively you're running a postmerge tree, since you now
    depend on bits I have in the parisc tree.

    Traditionally, the arch trees tend to go a bit later because they wait
    to see if there's any fallout from x86; but this time, I think it looks
    OK, so I've sent the pull request:

    http://marc.info/?l=linux-parisc&m=130604805417277

    As soon as that's in, you should be good to go.

    James


    > > It's that simple. We don't do this. Ever.
    >
    > Hah. I seem to remember bits of pulling from non-rebasing trees being ok
    > in well defined contexts. This seems like one. Especially when you
    > have checked with the maintainers.
    >
    > Plus all of the parisc bits in addition to being in the linux-next
    > are trivially correct.
    >
    > > Why the hell did you even worry about wiring up parisc system calls?
    > > That's not your job.
    >
    > Because in general it is the job of he who changes something to fix up
    > every possible place.
    >
    > Now maybe I went a little too far in trying to resolve the conflicts,
    > but I did check with the David Miller and James Bottomley and they knew
    > what I was doing.
    >
    > Quite honestly adding system calls is a mess that know one seems to
    > know how to do right. So I flipped a coin and took a stab at it.

    Right, the solution is reasonable and means linux-next doesn't have to
    carry a conflict resolution patch for this. It also means we agree on
    the syscall numbering ...

    The only real mistake was not waiting for the merge sequence: the base
    trees have to go first before you can push a postmerge tree.

    James




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-22 09:21    [W:0.028 / U:96.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site