On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 18:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > So, looked at the failed code. The only necessary change seems to be > calling device_remove_file_self() in dump_ack_store() and then doing > kobject_put() directly afterwards, which would have been completely > fine as a merge fix patch. Ok. Since there's no merge error, I'll have to tell Linus explicitly to apply it during the merge. I've never done that before but I suppose it's doable. > Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily against reverting the removal of > the API. The removal was based on the speculation that this isn't > likely to cause trouble. The speculation was perfectly reasonable but > being a speculation it failed, so we take actions to remedy that and > we *do* want to do things that way. Reverting the removal can sure be > one choice but the way that choice is being made here seems completely > wrong to me. There's no technical evaluation whatsoever. I'd really > hate to work in an environment where taking active trade off is > discouraged replaced with blind policy enforcement. Sorry I don't understand. Reverting the removal until after -rc1 (or later in the merge window) is the easiest path from my perspective and ensure no bisection breakage but whatever Linus prefers works here. I don't think it's a drastic action or anything like that. It can trivially be re-applied once the merge window has settled. But I'm happy to also just send Linus a "apply this as a merge fixup" patch if he's happy with the method (as I said, I've never done that before on something that doesn't have an actual merge conflict to begin with) Cheers, Ben. -- 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
