[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Nasal demons in preprocessor use (Re: [PATCH] test-suite: new preprocessor test case)
[removed duplicate Al Viro from Cc]

2009/3/20 Al Viro <>:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:04:09PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:08:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >
>> > * Vegard Nossum <> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I guess this means that kmemcheck branch should be withdrawn from
>> > > linux-next, at least temporarily, as I have no immediate
>> > > workarounds/alternatives. Stephen, can you drop it?
>> >
>> > Al Viro, well done :-(


> Ingo, care to explain what the hell had your reply above been about?
> Especially since we both apparently agree that code in question did
> need fixing, what with your immediate ACK upthread...


I think it is simply the frustration of discovering this rather
serious flaw just when the dust has settled, and with no capacity to
really fix it in a satisfactory way. But we should be thankful for the
heads up and try again to remember the value of linux-next and those
who test it!

(The solution you sketched is still quite an uglification of the
original code, something we tried to minimize using the construct you

So, Ingo: There's no way this could have been merged in mainline with
such a defect, and it would be a lot worse if it wasn't discovered at
this point. We'll just have to be creative (again!) and I'm sure
Stephen can revive the tree when it's been fixed.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-21 00:33    [W:0.073 / U:2.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site