On 09/30/2012 08:22 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:04:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 17:23 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:20:07PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@pobox.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  include/linux/bug.h |    2 +-
>>>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bug.h b/include/linux/bug.h
>>>> index aaac4bb..298a916 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/bug.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/bug.h
>>>> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
>>>>  #define BUILD_BUG()						\
>>>>  	do {							\
>>>>  		extern void __build_bug_failed(void)		\
>>>> -			__linktime_error("BUILD_BUG failed");	\
>>>> +			__compiletime_error("BUILD_BUG failed");\
>>>>  		__build_bug_failed();				\
>>>>  	} while (0)
>>> This change should either occur as part of patch 5 or before patch 5,
>>> not after.
>> I noticed the same thing and was about to comment on it.
>>
>> Please do not break bisectablity. All your patches should compile and
>> run at every step.
> And while we're at it, every patch upstream should have a commit message
> explaining why this is done. No matter how trivial it is, because after
> a sufficient amount of time passes, everyone tends to forget why this
> has been done.
>
> Thanks.
>
Ah, well thank you all for the guidance!

Daniel