|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||David Miller <davem-AT-davemloft.net>|
|| ||Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))|
|| ||Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:46:45 -0800|
|| ||jeff-AT-garzik.org, arjan-AT-infradead.org, greg-AT-kroah.com,
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:16:03 -0800 (PST) David Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <email@example.com>
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:37:42 -0800
> > Well there's a case in point. rcupdate.h is not a part of networking, and
> > it is random tree-wandering like this which causes me problems and which
> > will cause Stephen problems.
> > Now, I don't know which tree "owns" rcupdate.h but it ain't networking.
> > Probably git-sched.
> > Nothing in networking depends upon that change (which has a typo in the
> > comment, btw) hence it can and should have gone through
> > whichever-tree-owns-that-file.
> > For Stephen's sake: please.
> At least thie time I did make sure that change got posted to
> linux-kernel and got properly reviewed by the de-facto maintainer
> (Paul McKenney). :-)
Ah, thanks for that - I'm behind in my lkml reading. Again.
> I'll toss it.
While I was there I spotted a howling bug in rcu_assign_pointer(): a
double-touch of the second arg. Nobody has done
before? That would be surpising...
Paul has been informed ;)
> But how do I do that using GIT without rebasing and without
> having this ugly changeset and revert in there?
Who, me? umm, get git changed? It seems pretty clear that it isn't
matching legitimate kernel development workflow. And it is a tool's job to
do that, rather than forcing humans to change there practices.
> That's the thing I want answered, and although Al claims it does,
> git cherry-pick does not seem to do what I want either.
to post comments)