From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] proc: make grab_header static Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:38:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20080717153832.64928d89.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1216329755.6029.31.camel@brick> <20080717150950.5d721d90.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1216332937.6029.40.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:52600 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754520AbYGQWjD (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:39:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1216332937.6029.40.camel@brick> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Harvey Harrison Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:15:37 -0700 Harvey Harrison wrote: > 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? Both, I suggest. Fixes are important, and subsystem maintainers lose stuff distressingly often.