From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the lost-spurious-irq tree with the tip tree Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:55:22 +0200 Message-ID: <4CAACBDA.6090308@kernel.org> References: <20101005141334.6a0f15fd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4CAABC0E.3030700@kernel.org> <20101005063227.GB12267@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:59549 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757586Ab0JEGxm (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 02:53:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20101005063227.GB12267@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra Hello, Ingo. On 10/05/2010 08:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Tejun Heo wrote: > >>> I think I fixed it all up (see below). I can carry this fix (or a >>> better one) as necessary. >> >> Can you please drop lost-spurious-irq for now? It needs to be >> reimplemented. I'll send a merge request again when it's ready. > > Please send irq merge requests to Thomas instead and wait for those > genirq bits to show up upstream. (You did so in the past and the review > process was ongoing AFAICS) > > Otherwise we would be dilluting linux-next testing with random side > effects from a tree that wasnt yet (in that form) scheduled to go > upstream by its respective maintainer at that time. > > We were lucky that this showed up as merge complications - what if > instead it merged 'fine' on the textual and build/boot level but > mis-merged on the functional level in subtle ways? Thomas would be > sending something to Linus that was never really tested in linux-next in > that form, caused problems upstream, and Linus would be rightfully upset > about the situation. > > Stephen, you need to enforce such things ... I think Stephen had done enough. At the time, I wasn't sure which tree it was going to go through and it took some time before Thomas responded, so I was intending to push it through separately. I should have retracted the tree right after it was determined to be reimplemented but forgot. That's my mistake not Stephen's. Sorry about that. Thanks. -- tejun