From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752317Ab1J0PJp (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:09:45 -0400 Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:45313 "EHLO out5.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751848Ab1J0PJo (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:09:44 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: fRpjJsNWqEvNAu7NSPyUamIARAA1JG1nXwTeGYvjNlFK 1319728183 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:01:03 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Ilya Zykov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] TTY: pty, fix pty counting in "/proc/sys/kernel/pty/nr" Message-ID: <20111027150103.GC10883@kroah.com> References: <4EA928F3.7010204@ilyx.ru> <20111027123742.GB7910@kroah.com> <4EA95788.90808@ilyx.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EA95788.90808@ilyx.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 05:07:20PM +0400, Ilya Zykov wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 01:48:35PM +0400, Ilya Zykov wrote: > >> Regression for commit: 24d406a6bf736f7aebdc8fa0f0ec86e0890c6d24 > >> Commit: 24d406a6b accepted in Linux 3.1. > >> Disscussed on linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "subject: [PATCH] TTY: pty, fix pty counting" > >> and not accepted. > >> Although, I think it's clear. > > > > Ilya, is there some reason you are ignoring the tty maintainer and > > sending these to Linus directly? These patches need to be tested in > > linux-next, so at the earliest, they can be merged into Linus's tree for > > 3.3, they are NOT 3.2 material, especially given that they are not even > > accepted by the current tty developers. > > > > So please work with us, and don't try to circumvent the existing > > process, it is not the way we work here. > > > > Especially as this specific patch was already rejected, for very good > > reasons, why are you ignoring those reasons? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > > > OK, I understand you rules. > But I don't understand, what for, you accept patch(commit: > 24d406a6bf736f7aebdc8fa0f0ec86e0890c6d24), where "pty" call > tty_driver_remove_tty(), only for invoke its own > route(pty_unix98_remove). Please work with Alan and Jiri to get their acceptance of your patch, they are the ones that need to ack it before I will. thanks, greg k-h