* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tiny tree got conflicts in
> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c and arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c between
> commits dc56c0f9b870 ("x86, fpu: Shift "fpu_counter = 0" from
> copy_thread() to arch_dup_task_struct()") and 6f46b3aef003 ("x86:
> copy_thread: Don't nullify ->ptrace_bps twice") from the tip tree and
> commits a1cf09f93e66 ("x86: process: Unify 32-bit and 64-bit
> copy_thread I/O bitmap handling") and e4a191d1e05b ("x86: Support
> compiling out userspace I/O (iopl and ioperm)") from the tiny tree.
Why are such changes in the 'tiny' tree? These are sensitive
arch/x86 files, and any unification and compilation-out support
patches need to go through the proper review channels and be
merged upstream via the x86 tree if accepted...
In particular the graticious sprinking of #ifdef
CONFIG_X86_IOPORTs around x86 code looks ugly.
Josh, don't do that, this route is really unacceptable. Please
resubmit the latest patches and remove these from linux-next.
Thanks,
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
