linuxt-next: nfsd strange commit

linuxt-next: nfsd strange commit

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 608 bytes --]

Hi Bruce,

I was just wondering what commit 9966acbedc54b9c2d38d97bdd56b612d8da45b8d
("proc: move rest of /proc/locks to fs/locks.c") is doing in the
nfsd-next tree?  As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with nfsd and
no interaction with the nfsd code.

Adding random patches to trees in linux-next just makes my job
harder ...  especially when it touched something like include/linux/fs.h
and triggers a major rebuild of the tree (*and* it is the only thing in
the nfsd-next tree).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linuxt-next: nfsd strange commit

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:13:57PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> I was just wondering what commit 9966acbedc54b9c2d38d97bdd56b612d8da45b8d
> ("proc: move rest of /proc/locks to fs/locks.c") is doing in the
> nfsd-next tree?  As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with nfsd and
> no interaction with the nfsd code.
> 
> Adding random patches to trees in linux-next just makes my job
> harder ...  especially when it touched something like include/linux/fs.h
> and triggers a major rebuild of the tree (*and* it is the only thing in
> the nfsd-next tree).

I've also been acting as a (somewhat inconsistent) locks.c maintainer.

Would it make it any easier if I kept a locks-next branch that you could
pull separately?  Or should I try to get that stuff into some other
tree?

--b.

Re: linuxt-next: nfsd strange commit

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 930 bytes --]

Hi Bruce,

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:20:59 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>
> I've also been acting as a (somewhat inconsistent) locks.c maintainer.
> 
> Would it make it any easier if I kept a locks-next branch that you could
> pull separately?  Or should I try to get that stuff into some other
> tree?

A separate branch is possible, but if it is only one or two commits it is
hardly worth it.  Lets see how it goes.

However (I don't mean to pick on you, really :-)) your current tree has a
merge that says "Merge branch 'for-2.6.29' into for-mm".  I (and Andrew)
really don't want any 2.6.29 stuff in linux-next until after 2.6.28-rc1 -
it just muddies the conflicts.  So can you remove that merge for now (its
only a few days) and I will revert that merge in linux-next today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linuxt-next: nfsd strange commit

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:30:04AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:20:59 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> >
> > I've also been acting as a (somewhat inconsistent) locks.c maintainer.
> > 
> > Would it make it any easier if I kept a locks-next branch that you could
> > pull separately?  Or should I try to get that stuff into some other
> > tree?
> 
> A separate branch is possible, but if it is only one or two commits it is
> hardly worth it.  Lets see how it goes.

OK.

> However (I don't mean to pick on you, really :-)) your current tree has a
> merge that says "Merge branch 'for-2.6.29' into for-mm".  I (and Andrew)
> really don't want any 2.6.29 stuff in linux-next until after 2.6.28-rc1 -
> it just muddies the conflicts.  So can you remove that merge for now (its
> only a few days) and I will revert that merge in linux-next today.

Whoops.  OK, hopefully the current nfsd-next is more to your liking....

--b.