Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:41:17 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq_open() return value |
| |
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > > Sorry, I ment Linus's tree, that's where it matters for the stable > > releases. > > The patch in question hasn't hit Linus' tree yet, but it's queued up in Stephen Rothwell's for-next tree. As I understand it, Andrew's tree gets fed into that on a somewhat regular basis, and Andrew took my four patches (plus a patchcheck fixup he committed) already. So, I pulled Stephen's for-next, put my patches plus the patchcheck fix on top, then wrote a fixup patch that fixes what I saw as being wrong in the patch in question.
(Please hit <enter> occasionally?)
This is all waaaaay too confusing. For starters, please never say "the patch" or "it" or "new patch". Patches have names - let's use them, and greatly reduce the amount of head-spinning. (And I mean "names", not git hashes, which can be different in different trees).
There are no patches againt ipc/mqueue.c pending in any tree I can see apart from the 4+fix from yourself, which are in -mm and will be in linux-next next time I send an update to Stephen:
ipc-mqueue-cleanup-definition-names-and-locations.patch ipc-mqueue-switch-back-to-using-non-max-values-on-create.patch ipc-mqueue-enforce-hard-limits.patch ipc-mqueue-update-maximums-for-the-mqueue-subsystem.patch ipc-mqueue-update-maximums-for-the-mqueue-subsystem-checkpatch-fixes.patch
Everything else is already in Linus's tree.
I don't have a clue what's going on here. Let's start again.
| |