Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:46:45 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| |
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:16:03 -0800 (PST) David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:37:42 -0800 > > > Well there's a case in point. rcupdate.h is not a part of networking, and > > it is random tree-wandering like this which causes me problems and which > > will cause Stephen problems. > > > > Now, I don't know which tree "owns" rcupdate.h but it ain't networking. > > Probably git-sched. > > > > Nothing in networking depends upon that change (which has a typo in the > > comment, btw) hence it can and should have gone through > > whichever-tree-owns-that-file. > > > > For Stephen's sake: please. > > At least thie time I did make sure that change got posted to > linux-kernel and got properly reviewed by the de-facto maintainer > (Paul McKenney). :-)
Ah, thanks for that - I'm behind in my lkml reading. Again.
> I'll toss it.
While I was there I spotted a howling bug in rcu_assign_pointer(): a double-touch of the second arg. Nobody has done
rcu_assign_pointer(p, something_with_side_effects);
before? That would be surpising...
Paul has been informed ;)
> But how do I do that using GIT without rebasing and without > having this ugly changeset and revert in there?
Who, me? umm, get git changed? It seems pretty clear that it isn't matching legitimate kernel development workflow. And it is a tool's job to do that, rather than forcing humans to change there practices.
> That's the thing I want answered, and although Al claims it does, > git cherry-pick does not seem to do what I want either.
| |