Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen tree with the tip tree

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/mm/init_32.c between commit
> 1d931264af0f10649b35afa8fbd2e169da51ac08 ("x86-32, memblock: Make
> add_highpages honor early reserved ranges") from the tip tree and commit
> 07147a06ac3b1b028124ea00ba44e69eb8ea7685 ("x86/32: honor reservations of
> high memory") from the xen tree.

Jeremy,

Commit 07147a06ac is all over the x86 tree:

  arch/x86/mm/init_32.c     |   42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
  include/linux/early_res.h |    3 +++
  kernel/early_res.c        |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

... but there's no x86 person who acked it or was Cc:-ed to this commit AFAICS. It 
was not even posted to lkml! Nor does the commit title suggest that it affects core 
kernel code as well.

Also, the AuthorDate field is a total lie:

  commit 07147a06ac3b1b028124ea00ba44e69eb8ea7685
  Author:     Gianluca Guida <gianluca.guida@citrix.com>
  AuthorDate: Sun Aug 2 01:25:48 2009 +0100
  Commit:     Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
  CommitDate: Mon Oct 4 14:22:11 2010 -0700

    x86/32: honor reservations of high memory

This commit was written on Aug 2 2009, really? kernel/early_res.c, which is modified 
by half of this commit, was _CREATED_ in February 2010 ...

I realize that some original patch, much different from this one, was probably 
written in 2009, and that via a series of undocumented rebases and modifications to 
the patch you achieved this state.

Crap like that is just _NOT_ acceptable, and you know that perfectly well - if you 
do this to arch/x86/ i'll be forced to ask for the Xen tree to be removed from 
linux-next and be done via the x86 tree again.

	Ingo