Re: hwpoison merge for linux-next / 2.6.32

Re: hwpoison merge for linux-next / 2.6.32

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1317 bytes --]

Hi Andi,

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:49:02 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> Could you please pull git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ak/linux-mce-2.6.git hwpoison
> into linux-next?
> 
> hwpoison is the VM part of extended memory error handling.
> 
> This tree has been extensively reviewed now and people seem to be happy now and is 
> imho ready for merge.
> 
> Andrew also indicated earlier he would merge it for .32.

OK, I have added this today.

What I tell everyone: all patches/commits in the tree/series must
have been:

	posted to a relevant mailing list
	reviewed
	unit tested
	destined for the next merge window (or the current release)

*before* they are included.  The linux-next tree is for integration
testing and to lower the impact of conflicts between subsystems in the
next merge window.

Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus or in this
case, Ingo, (or ask him to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you
deem it necessary.

> How do you want to handle it. Will you take it and send or should I send direct 
> pull requests to Linus during the merge window?

Andrew, If you have other plans, just yell.

-- 
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: hwpoison merge for linux-next / 2.6.32

[Andi Kleen]

> OK, I have added this today.

Thanks.

> What I tell everyone: all patches/commits in the tree/series must
> have been:
> 
> 	posted to a relevant mailing list
> 	reviewed
> 	unit tested
> 	destined for the next merge window (or the current release)

all true for hwpoison.

> 
> *before* they are included.  The linux-next tree is for integration
> testing and to lower the impact of conflicts between subsystems in the
> next merge window.
> 
> Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus or in this
> case, Ingo, (or ask him to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you

This is practially all generic MM or VFS code, nothing for Ingo.

The only part that should concern anything Ingo maintains
is a one tiny patch for x86 in the patch series. While that could
be in theory separated out I don't think it makes too much sense
(the patch wouldn't build without the rest of hwpoison)

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

Re: hwpoison merge for linux-next / 2.6.32

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 563 bytes --]

Hi Andi,

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:55:35 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus or in this
> > case, Ingo, (or ask him to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you
> 
> This is practially all generic MM or VFS code, nothing for Ingo.

Sorry, cut and paste error, it should have read:

Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
to fetch).

-- 
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: hwpoison merge for linux-next / 2.6.32

[Andi Kleen]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 08:00:25PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andi,
> 
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:55:35 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus or in this
> > > case, Ingo, (or ask him to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you
> > 
> > This is practially all generic MM or VFS code, nothing for Ingo.
> 
> Sorry, cut and paste error, it should have read:

I see you have a template for this.

> 
> Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
> to fetch).

Yes it is (unless someone finds a fatal bug in the current version)

It's still not clear if I should do that or let Andrew do it.

Andrew, what do you prefer?

-Andi


-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.