lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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.




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-30 01:43    [W:0.019 / U:72.988 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site