Re: [PATCH] libsrp: fix compile failure

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:12:26 +0100 (CET)
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> wrote:

> 
> [ added Stephen to CC ]
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> /me checks ...
> 
> Yes, it indeed is that way -- Andew pulls whole linux-next as one of the 
> patches into -mm series.
> 
> To make linux-next really working the way it is intended to work we need 
> to have -mm part of it, as it is used as a last point for a non-trivial 
> amount of patches before they enter Linus' tree.
> 
> Andrew, why do we have the current setup, and not the other way around?
> 

Because I suck.  I haven't yet got around to feeding -mm into
linux-next.  It's a bit tricky, because -mm is based on linux-next. 
Probably we'll address this by adding a "linux-next before the mm bits"
marker to linux-next.