Hi Tejun, [This is not aimed just at you ... this patch just gave me an opportunity to point this out again.] On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:37:28 +0900 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This patch is on top of the current percpu#for-next. > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git for-next > > Thanks. > > NOT_SIGNED_OFF_YET Well, given no SOB and that this is a RFC patch, it should *not* be in a branch that is pulled into linux-next. This is what I send to any maintainer that submits a tree for linux-next inclusion (and before anyone else points it out: this was not true early on): "all patches/commits in the tree/series must have been: posted to a relevant mailing list reviewed unit tested destined for the next merge window (or the current release) *before* they are included. The linux-next tree is for integration testing and to lower the impact of conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window. Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary." -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpS1FixJMR3D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
