From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758137Ab1I2XlV (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:41:21 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:57833 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757997Ab1I2XlT (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:41:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:41:17 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Doug Ledford Cc: Greg KH , stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jiri Slaby , Manfred Spraul , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq_open() return value Message-Id: <20110929164117.8ffc3878.akpm00@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20110929190855.GA5381@suse.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Doug Ledford wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > Sorry, I ment Linus's tree, that's where it matters for the stable > > releases. > > The patch in question hasn't hit Linus' tree yet, but it's queued up in Stephen Rothwell's for-next tree. As I understand it, Andrew's tree gets fed into that on a somewhat regular basis, and Andrew took my four patches (plus a patchcheck fixup he committed) already. So, I pulled Stephen's for-next, put my patches plus the patchcheck fix on top, then wrote a fixup patch that fixes what I saw as being wrong in the patch in question. (Please hit occasionally?) This is all waaaaay too confusing. For starters, please never say "the patch" or "it" or "new patch". Patches have names - let's use them, and greatly reduce the amount of head-spinning. (And I mean "names", not git hashes, which can be different in different trees). There are no patches againt ipc/mqueue.c pending in any tree I can see apart from the 4+fix from yourself, which are in -mm and will be in linux-next next time I send an update to Stephen: ipc-mqueue-cleanup-definition-names-and-locations.patch ipc-mqueue-switch-back-to-using-non-max-values-on-create.patch ipc-mqueue-enforce-hard-limits.patch ipc-mqueue-update-maximums-for-the-mqueue-subsystem.patch ipc-mqueue-update-maximums-for-the-mqueue-subsystem-checkpatch-fixes.patch Everything else is already in Linus's tree. I don't have a clue what's going on here. Let's start again.