From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE3B3B71DB for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:33:46 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: <20090612092054.GB32052@elte.hu> References: <20090612102427.32582baa.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1244768406.7172.1.camel@pasglop> <20090612092054.GB32052@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:33:17 +1000 Message-Id: <1244799197.7172.106.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Peter Zijlstra , ppc-dev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, Linus List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Ah - thanks. The bug was caused by me being a bit too optimistic in > applying the shiny-new Power7 support patches on the last day. (nice > CPU btw.) In that case paulus tells me it's actually Peter screwing up moving something from the powerpc code to generic :-) .../... > Such bugs happen, and they are easy enough to fix. What matters > arent the 1-2 short-lived bugs that do happen when a new combination > of trees is created, but the long-lived combination bugs and > conflicts. I'm not saying -next would fix world hunger ... but in this case we have two sets of issues, perfctr and the init ordering change which both got merged totally bypassing -next... We should at least -try- to follow the process we've defined, don't you think ? Cheers, Ben.