On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 17:33 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Eric W. Biederman > > <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> In a hopeless quest to avoid conflicts when merging a new system call > >> and wiring it up I have pulled in bits of net-next and the parisc tree. > >> You have already pulled the net-next bits. The parisc bits in my tree > >> are: > > > > Ok, this just means that I won't pull from you. > > Sure. I will try to be a little more patient and resend the pull > request after James has sent the pull request for the parisc tree. > At which point the only unique changes in my tree will be mine. Right ... effectively you're running a postmerge tree, since you now depend on bits I have in the parisc tree. Traditionally, the arch trees tend to go a bit later because they wait to see if there's any fallout from x86; but this time, I think it looks OK, so I've sent the pull request: http://marc.info/?l=linux-parisc&m=130604805417277 As soon as that's in, you should be good to go. James > > It's that simple. We don't do this. Ever. > > Hah. I seem to remember bits of pulling from non-rebasing trees being ok > in well defined contexts. This seems like one. Especially when you > have checked with the maintainers. > > Plus all of the parisc bits in addition to being in the linux-next > are trivially correct. > > > Why the hell did you even worry about wiring up parisc system calls? > > That's not your job. > > Because in general it is the job of he who changes something to fix up > every possible place. > > Now maybe I went a little too far in trying to resolve the conflicts, > but I did check with the David Miller and James Bottomley and they knew > what I was doing. > > Quite honestly adding system calls is a mess that know one seems to > know how to do right. So I flipped a coin and took a stab at it. Right, the solution is reasonable and means linux-next doesn't have to carry a conflict resolution patch for this. It also means we agree on the syscall numbering ... The only real mistake was not waiting for the merge sequence: the base trees have to go first before you can push a postmerge tree. James _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
