On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 01:06:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. Apologies, thanks for the correction. I see Stephen Rothwell's message from October 5. I think at the time I said "OK, looks minor, just something to mention in the pull request", then forgot about it. In future when that happens, I'll add some kind of reminder to my request-pull script. Stephen also sent a warning about a merge conflict with the vfs tree (not merged yet, I think) but I assume that's not as big a deal since it should actually show up at merge time, not build time: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181029122121.7758fed4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --b.
