On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 11:10:06AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > "the percpu cleanup patch" is nowhere nearly specific enough to be > useful. I don't know what patch this is. Sorry, I should have been more specific. It's called: percpu-counters-clean-up-percpu_counter_sum_and_set-interface.patch in in your mmotm tree. > If stuff turns up in linux-next then I'll just drop the -mm duplicate > under the assumption that the patch is being taken care of by someone > else. Well, in the past you've been asked me not to include non-ext4 patches in the ext4 tree. So I could include that patch in an ext4 patchset and push it to linux-next, since it *does* involve changes to fs/ext4 as well as to include/linux/percpu_counter.h and lib/percpu_counter.c, if that would be easier. Or we can keep it out of the set of patches I push to Linus, but then we have to worry about patch ordering and dependencies a bit more. > I will usually attempt to verify that the subsystem tree merged > the correct patch. Fairly often they didn't. I've checked, and modulo some minor changelog comment fixups I had made to fix grammar and spelling that I had made to my version of the patch, and the fact that we didn't have your signed-off-by in your version of the patch, the patch we have is identical. I'll reconcile the changelog comments headers on my end, and if you want to keep it in -mm, I'll send them back to you. Otherwise I'll include it in ext4 patches and you can drop it from yours if that's OK with you. Whatever's easier.... - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
