Hello, Ingo. On 10/05/2010 08:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I think I fixed it all up (see below). I can carry this fix (or a >>> better one) as necessary. >> >> Can you please drop lost-spurious-irq for now? It needs to be >> reimplemented. I'll send a merge request again when it's ready. > > Please send irq merge requests to Thomas instead and wait for those > genirq bits to show up upstream. (You did so in the past and the review > process was ongoing AFAICS) > > Otherwise we would be dilluting linux-next testing with random side > effects from a tree that wasnt yet (in that form) scheduled to go > upstream by its respective maintainer at that time. > > We were lucky that this showed up as merge complications - what if > instead it merged 'fine' on the textual and build/boot level but > mis-merged on the functional level in subtle ways? Thomas would be > sending something to Linus that was never really tested in linux-next in > that form, caused problems upstream, and Linus would be rightfully upset > about the situation. > > Stephen, you need to enforce such things ... I think Stephen had done enough. At the time, I wasn't sure which tree it was going to go through and it took some time before Thomas responded, so I was intending to push it through separately. I should have retracted the tree right after it was determined to be reimplemented but forgot. That's my mistake not Stephen's. Sorry about that. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
