From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757636Ab3APWSg (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:18:36 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:28196 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757136Ab3APWSe (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:18:34 -0500 Message-ID: <50F72706.5090900@oracle.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:17:42 -0500 From: Sasha Levin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130113 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Peter Senna Tschudin , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hlist: drop the node parameter from iterators References: <1358094677-11384-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> <50F72272.8090303@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/16/2013 05:04 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >> I guess that if you agree that it should go in once it had some more >> testing, it can go into linux-next and sit there for the next couple >> of weeks until the next merge window opens. > > So linux-next gets compile testing and warns about conflicts. But > almost nobody really runs the end result. I do :) I also know that people run ltp tests on top of those builds, so while it's not as good as actually working with it, it's also not insignificant. > Now, *hopefully* the compile problems and conflicts are the major > issue, but at the same time, I worry about some actual subtle semantic > breakage. I'm not sure how it would happen, but it's a big patch.. > >> What would be the best way to do that though? see if akpm would take >> it into his tree? > > That would help. As would just linux-next. As would just after the > next merge window closes, if you can send it almost immediately *and* > have the "at least the patch has been around for a long time with no > *known* breakage" note. Because at some point, I guess we can't do > much more than that. Alrighty, right after merge window it is. The -rc4 period is what you told me the last time I sent this patch, so I went with that this time. I'll resend this patch to Andrew in hopes that he'll be okay with having it in his tree until the next window. Thanks!