Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:45:37 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [git pull] x86 updates for v2.6.28, phase #2 - PAT updates |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Ingo Molnar (12): > > Revert "reduce tlb/cache flush times of agpgart memory allocation" > > Revert "introduce two APIs for page attribute" > > Revert "x86: handle error returns in set_memory_*()" > > Revert "x86: track memtype for RAM in page struct" > > Revert "x86, cpa: global flush tlb after splitting large page and before doing cpa" > > Revert "x86, cpa: remove cpa pool code" > > Revert "x86, cpa: fix taking the pgd_lock with interrupts off" > > Revert "x86, cpa: dont use large pages for kernel identity mapping with DEBUG_PAGEALLOC" > > Revert "x86, cpa: make the kernel physical mapping initialization a two pass sequence" > > Revert "x86, cpa: remove USER permission from the very early identity mapping attribute" > > Revert "x86, cpa: rename PTE attribute macros for kernel direct mapping in early boot" > > x86, pat: cleanups > > So half of the commits by Suresh were reverted. > > Not only that, they were reverted WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATIONS OF > WHY THEY WERE CLEARLY BUGGY PILES OF CRUD. The revert messages are > just things like > > This reverts commit <sha1>. > > which makes both the original commit _and_ the revert just totally > pointless, because we didn't learn anything.
hm, those reverts werent supposed to survive. Again, my bad. I'll clean it out.
Here is how the screwup happened: a series was sent, i applied it, found a test failure with it and reported it:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0809.1/2388.html
but to be able to continue testing i temporarily reverted those bits manually in reverse order, because it took some down to pin down the breakage and these bits got intermixed with other commits - and i did not want to rebase commits that came after the broken series.
Then the corrected v2 series arrived (not a delta fix) and i applied those. The idea was to create a delta patch against the first series so that i can see the changes.
v2 worked well in testing:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0809.1/2375.html
So it's basically a v1 -> v2 sequence, with artificial reverts surviving unintentionally. That's why there were no revert messages either: i never intended them to become public. I even rember having taken a good look at "git diff 6b5b551..6e3e492", which the v1->v2 delta was.
What i havent done was to squash all these artificial commits together and create the delta commit - this is one of the few cases where rebasing of that temporary tail would have been the right thing to do, before pushing it out.
And i should also have noticed this weird sequence of commit logs when doing the pull request.
Sorry :-(
Ingo
| |