From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harvey Harrison Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] proc: make grab_header static Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:15:37 -0700 Message-ID: <1216332937.6029.40.camel@brick> References: <1216329755.6029.31.camel@brick> <20080717150950.5d721d90.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.171]:36605 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754053AbYGQWQR (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:16:17 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so104072wfd.4 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:16:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080717150950.5d721d90.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:09 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > urgh. We need to do something here. > > People are dumping large hunks of 2.6.28 material into linux-next > during the merge window. This screws me up because I haven't merged > into 2.6.27 yet, and my patch queue is based on linux-next. And I > _have_ to do that, because lots of the git trees haven't merged into > mainline yet. Good luck. I'll keep plugging away with my daily allyesconfig of each -next snapshot to try and keep new warnings from going in....and over time hopefully get the number to decrease. Should I CC: you on on those fix patches, or try to get them directly through the tree they came in from? Cheers, Harvey