On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:10:18 -0700 "Paul Menage" <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/29/07, Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Paul M: > > > > This patch doesn't build for me in the following case. If I apply the > > rest of the containersv11 patches, it builds, but if I happen to bisect > > into this set of patches having applied only: > > These patches weren't the normal style of incremental patchset - they > were direct substitutions of the previous patches in Andrew's -mm > tree. > > Andrew's approach when encountering patches that are, e.g. missing > includes on some architectures, is to add a *-fix.patch to the series; > in this case it looks as though the fix for the missing ia64 include > was added towards the end of the series rather than directly after the > patch that needed it. It makes my poor little life heaps easier if people can refer to patches via their original Subject: or, better, their filename in the -mm patch series. I have vague memories that one of the container/cgroup fixup patches was a bit of a jumbo patch which intersected multiple preceding patches. Often I will refactor such a patch into several little *-fix.patch patches so that everything lands nicely, but this time it was all too much effort and I just jammmed <whichever patch it was> onto the tail of the queue. And I think that's OK, because we don't care about git bisectability with CONFIG_CGROUPS=y (I think?) Anyone who is bisecting through the middle of the containers patch series is not searching for a containers problem, so they can just configure it all off. If we broke the build when CONFIG_CGROUPS=n then yeah, that's a problem. wrt Paul's observation: > ... also ... too bad the names of these patches all have 'container' in > them, not 'cgroup'. I realize how this came to be, due to changing > container to cgroup after these patches were named, but it sure would > be nice if the final patch set record that gets layed down in Linus's > history showed the correct name of 'cgroup' in these patch names. that'll be OK. The "task-containers" text appears only in the filenmaes in the -mm patch series. Those filenames don't make an appearance in the git tree at all, so I didn't bother renaming all the files. > Hence the fact that you couldn't compile until > that later patch had been pushed. > > Andrew, is it practical for you to collapse any *-fix.patch files for > cgroups into the appropriate patches that they fix? That would > simplify the patch set a bit. Yep, I always do that prior to sending to Linus, so everything hits the git tree as nicely as possible. I normally defer that patch-folding exercise until the last minute, but I will occasionally do a big fold-some-patches-together pass, just to reduce the plain number of patches which I'm carrying. It gets irritating when this: box:/usr/src/25> grep foo patches/* zsh: argument list too long: grep happens. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers