lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 0/17] Series to introduce WARN()... a WARN_ON() variant that takes printk arguments
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:37:03 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > > The first few patches have been in -mm for a long time; the later
> > > > ones are newer and introduce more users of WARN().
> > >
> > > i've created a new -git based topic branch in tip/core/warn-API and
> > > picked up your patches:
> >
> > um, why?
> >
> > If you merge this into linux-next then it will trash already-merged
> > patches in -mm and, more particularly, it will trash other trees which
> > you aren't looking at, causing Stephen problems.
>
> no, i didnt plan to push this towards linux-next - given the broad
> consensus and given the wide spread of the changes.

Well, there was no way for me (or, I believe, Arjan or anyone else) to have
worked this out from your reply.

> I wanted to wait with this until the end of the merge window and keep it
> tested and merged up nicely. I.e. zero maintenance overhead to
> subsystems.

That's an option. That's why I will cc the relevant subsystem maintainers
on the commits, and will collect and maintain the acked-by's.

> > The way to merge this code is to get the base patches into mainline
> > and then trickle the dependent patches into subsystem trees, or direct
> > into mainline after the subsystem trees have merged, and with suitable
> > acks.
> >
> > You aren't set up to do that?
>
> i think it's better to just go through the merge window i believe, and
> then do this atomically in one correct and tested step, when all
> subsystem trees are at their minimum size and there's virtually no
> collisions.

Probably.

> Note that this situation is special: this is a patchset that has
> virtually no functionality side-effects, and hence can be done 100%
> correctly, i thought the atomic step was the right approach.
>
> For anything semantically meaningful i too would do the spread-out
> gradual approach (and i'm presently doing that for a number of topics).
>
> But if you'd like to do this the spread-out way then sure, and i will
> drop this tree. ( if you do that then please import the commits from
> tip/core/warn-API, i fixed a couple of of typos in the commit messages
> and did some merging and extensions as well. The tree also passed a fair
> amount of testing meanwhile as well. )
>
> Anyway, your call.

Well I haven't got onto processing these patches in detail yet. An open
questions is why the damn thing was resubmitted from scratch when I've
already merged it and fixed various rejects and had to fix several bugs in
it. Do those rejects need to be re-fixed? Were my bugfixes folded back?
I haven't looked yet. I'll need to generate the incremental diff and see
what was done.

But if what you've merged was against mainline then it isn't terribly
useful.

Hopefully this sort of thing won't happen as much once I get -mm into
linx-next. Soon...



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-09 13:55    [W:0.060 / U:0.920 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site