From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: linuxt-next: nfsd strange commit Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:20:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20081021132059.GA8029@fieldses.org> References: <20081021141357.ab15406f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:39887 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752252AbYJUNVB (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:21:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081021141357.ab15406f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org 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.