* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/mm/init_32.c between commit
> 1d931264af0f10649b35afa8fbd2e169da51ac08 ("x86-32, memblock: Make
> add_highpages honor early reserved ranges") from the tip tree and commit
> 07147a06ac3b1b028124ea00ba44e69eb8ea7685 ("x86/32: honor reservations of
> high memory") from the xen tree.
Jeremy,
Commit 07147a06ac is all over the x86 tree:
arch/x86/mm/init_32.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
include/linux/early_res.h | 3 +++
kernel/early_res.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
... but there's no x86 person who acked it or was Cc:-ed to this commit AFAICS. It
was not even posted to lkml! Nor does the commit title suggest that it affects core
kernel code as well.
Also, the AuthorDate field is a total lie:
commit 07147a06ac3b1b028124ea00ba44e69eb8ea7685
Author: Gianluca Guida <gianluca.guida@xxxxxxxxxx>
AuthorDate: Sun Aug 2 01:25:48 2009 +0100
Commit: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
CommitDate: Mon Oct 4 14:22:11 2010 -0700
x86/32: honor reservations of high memory
This commit was written on Aug 2 2009, really? kernel/early_res.c, which is modified
by half of this commit, was _CREATED_ in February 2010 ...
I realize that some original patch, much different from this one, was probably
written in 2009, and that via a series of undocumented rebases and modifications to
the patch you achieved this state.
Crap like that is just _NOT_ acceptable, and you know that perfectly well - if you
do this to arch/x86/ i'll be forced to ask for the Xen tree to be removed from
linux-next and be done via the x86 tree again.
Ingo
--
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
