On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:55 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Pulled,
Oh, I take that back. Semantic conflict with locking name change
(recv_lock -> queue_lock) and new code in
net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_backchannel.c
exposed by my build test.
And looking around, it was reported in linux-next, but you didn't
mention it, which kind of makes the whole reporting pointless.
Guys, what is the point of linux-next if you then don't *react* to it?
The correct reaction is to say during the merge window that "hey,
linux-next showed this issue", just so that I know about it and it
doesn't take me by surprise.
Yes, my normal build tests caught it, and I've fixed up my merge, but
this isn't how things are supposed to work.
Linus
