Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:53:40 +1000 (EST) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: Resolved merge conflicts in next-creds |
| |
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David, James, > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:16:02 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > I have a plan for getting rid of these - I will start on it today or > > tomorrow. > > As a start, can you create a patch (or patches) that does just the > include/linux/creds.h part of commits > 785af0f385cd424d4b40908bf0e467df3dc05434 ("CRED: Change current->fs[ug]id > to current_fs[ug]id()") and f4d399d40debd14b22967153294b94087cbcf789 > ("CRED: Wrap most current->e?[ug]id and some task->e?[ug]id") and send > that to Linus explaining to him the reason we want these in 2.6.27 > (Something like "The introduction of the credentials API in 2.6.28 > requires the abstracting of access to some fields in the task structure. > This change introduces trivial noop version of the desired accessors so > that other subsystems can start to be converted over."). This > explanation should go in the commit message. > > After he has put those patch(es) in, you could break up the rest of those > two commits by subsystem/arc/driver (or something) and ask the > appropriate maintainers to apply them and send them to Linus (with a > similar explanation) (or just ask them to ACK such patches so you can > send them upstream). > > Hopefully this way ww will avoid a lot of the merge pain during the next > merge window and the other subsystems can continue on in their > development. > > How does that sound?
We have tried this approach thus far without success, although perhaps now the code has been in linux-next and you've come to the same conclusion, we could try again.
David, if you want to make a minimal API-only patch set, I'll can stage it and push to Linus.
- James -- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
| |