Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5

Ingo Molnar
2008-06-06T15:34:18Z

* Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:

> The patch ordering was incorrect as I removed the node_to_cpumask_map
> before I replaced the MAX_NUMNODES, should have been the opposite.

It needed the combination 4 failures along the line: the debug check was
not complete, the ordering was bad and thus the splitup was bad as well
- and then one component went missing in linux-next and the combined
effect created this bug that needed a bisection by Andrew and Vegard to
figure out.

the moral: we now tightened the debug check, fixed the integration bug
and tightened the checks we have for patch propagation. (Thomas just
added the new tip-check-integration script to tip/tip that implements
this)

Ingo