On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:06:34AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > You've not replied to my request (attached below) to put these > trivial BKL-pushdown bits into a separate branch/tree and not into > the VFS tree. You've now mixed that commit with other VFS changes. > > Had it been in a separate branch, and had we tested it, Linus could > have pulled the trivial BKL pushdown bits out of normal merge order > as well. That is not possible now. It shouldn't be pushed out of order. It's a normal VFS locking change and should be pushed with the next VFS push for 2.6.31. > Furthermore, by doing this you are also hindering the > tip:kill-the-BKL effort (which has been ongoing for a year chipping > away at various BKL details) which facilitated these changes. > Alessio did these fixes to fix bugs he can trigger in that tree. > > You've also not explained why you have done it this way. It would > cost you almost nothing to apply these bits into a separate branch > and merge that branch into your main tree. Lots of other maintainer > are doing that. Having a separate kill the BKL tree is a stupid idea. Locking changes need deep subsystem knowledge and should always go through the subsystem trees. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
