From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755565AbYBJXKA (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:10:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752660AbYBJXJx (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:09:53 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:33012 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752059AbYBJXJw (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:09:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:09:27 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Linus Torvalds , Randy Dunlap , LKML , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [git pull] x86 updates Message-ID: <20080210230927.GA24812@elte.hu> References: <20080209172538.87994c61.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > So Thomas, don't do this. I don't like it. The same way I didn't like > > seeing Ingo trying to mix in a kgdb pull into his x86 pull. Keep these > > things separate - git is *really* good at having multiple branches with > > different lines of development, use it that way (or send odd-ball misc > > patches just as emails). > > Please accept my apologies. > > I went through the content, pointed out the other two non x86 patches > and did not notice the vsprintf one. My bad. and i'd like to apologize for the misleading Subject line which said "Subject: x86: ...". That i think made us miss the generic impact later on (we remind ourselves about non-arch/x86 patches via Subject line annotations and via looking at the diffstat before pull requests), and the accidentally missing diffstat just removed the last-line defense against such annotation mistakes. btw., i was -->.<--- this close to removing this patch from x86.git altogether - because it had a bug (which already shows its non-obviousness) and i didnt think this complication was worth it. When that happened i took a really hard look at its correctness and worthiness and narrowly decided to keep it - but enforced an unusually long testing interval for this patch. Ingo