Hi Eric, On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:16:06 -0700 ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > I am not certain what your point is. I am just trying to give Linus a heads up for branches that have not had much exposure before he is asked to pull them. > There have been no commits added since the merge window opened. > > There was one commit changed to fix a typo. I documented that already. Yes, that is what confused my, sorry, since that commit and the ones following are new commits but unchanged patches. > There were some commits pushed to the tree as late as friday that had > been out for review earlier than that and it is possible that you did > not pick them up in linux-next until monday. That doesn't mean I added > anything after the merge window opened. Correct. > I have also made certain all of these commits have at least had a chance > to show up in linux-next. > > As for missing cool tags shrug. The people looking at my code didn't > feel like saying the magic words so I didn't include cool tags. Maybe you should push them ... these tags are not just "cool", they give less involved people some indications of what has happened in the life of a patch. > Beyond that I have been quite out of it recently and this is what I had > time to do. If I had had a little more time and energy I would have > included unmount on unlink patches that still need magic to happen to > keep from blowing the stack in pathological cases on everything except > x86_64. That code has been sitting in linux-next. > > Which is a my long winded way of say it sounds like you are accusing me > of being irresponsible, and my way of saying that I have tested and I did not mean to accuse, there are reasons (as you have pointed out) that things get added late, or rewritten. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
