Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:16:03 -0800 (PST) David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> 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

	rcu_assign_pointer(p, something_with_side_effects);

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.