From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] libsrp: fix compile failure Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:22:00 -0600 Message-ID: <1262625721.2724.158.camel@mulgrave.site> References: <1262200866.2749.226.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:51807 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752557Ab0ADRWO (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:22:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Linus Torvalds , Stefani Seibold , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , linux-scsi On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 16:21 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > The fix is simple, just add the include, but how did this happen? This > > > change, introduced at -rc2, hardly looks like a bug fix, and it clearly > > > didn't go through linux-next, which would have picked up this compile > > > failure (it only occurs on ppc because of the ibm virtual scsi target). > > > > It came through Andrew - and apparently parts of Andrews chain weren't in > > next. Don't know why. > > Uhm ... are they supposed to be? -mm is being built on top of -next, not > vice versa, right? Well, the fact that the compile failure wasn't detected before it went upstream should answer that ... But to be more specific: linux-next is our integration tree (and also the obscure architecture compile tree). To ensure the best possible integration, every tree should be built and tested in linux-next at least once before it goes to Linus. There were originally technical reasons why -mm wasn't in ... I just thought they'd been fixed by now. James