[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the net-next tree
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:26 PM, David Miller <> wrote:
> From: Paul Moore <>
> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:20:33 -0500
>>> So you would only have to wait until my tree went in before
>>> sending your pull request.
>> So you would want me to rebase selinux/next on top of Linus' tree in
>> the middle of the merge window? I'm sure that isn't what you meant,
>> but that's how I keep reading the above ... which can't be right,
>> because in my experience that's one way to piss off Linus. Help me
>> understand what you are saying.
> I never said you rebase anything. I wonder where you get that from.

As I said, I was just trying to figure out what you were suggesting.
Your email was not very clear in my opinion.

> I'm saying, you just defer your pull request until Linus takes my
> networking tree in.
> No changes or rebasing of your tree is necessary whatsoever. You just
> ask him to pull your tree as-is.
> Again, this is what other smaller subsystem trees do when they have a
> situation like this.

Which gets us back to what I originally suggested in my first email of
this thread: linux-next carries the fixup patch and when we send the
pull requests to Linus we mention this fixup/thread.

For what it's worth, if you mention the potential merge conflict, and
the fixup that Stephen provided, it shouldn't matter when the pull
requests are sent to Linus; he's a smart guy, he'll merge things in
the order he wants. I've seen more than a few people get burned by
deferring pull requests, I don't intend to have SELinux, or audit for
that matter, run into the same problem.

paul moore

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-08 00:30    [W:0.067 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site