On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:16:03 -0800 (PST) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:37:42 -0800
>
> > Well there's a case in point. rcupdate.h is not a part of networking, and
> > it is random tree-wandering like this which causes me problems and which
> > will cause Stephen problems.
> >
> > Now, I don't know which tree "owns" rcupdate.h but it ain't networking.
> > Probably git-sched.
> >
> > Nothing in networking depends upon that change (which has a typo in the
> > comment, btw) hence it can and should have gone through
> > whichever-tree-owns-that-file.
> >
> > For Stephen's sake: please.
>
> At least thie time I did make sure that change got posted to
> linux-kernel and got properly reviewed by the de-facto maintainer
> (Paul McKenney). :-)
Ah, thanks for that - I'm behind in my lkml reading. Again.
> I'll toss it.
While I was there I spotted a howling bug in rcu_assign_pointer(): a
double-touch of the second arg. Nobody has done
rcu_assign_pointer(p, something_with_side_effects);
before? That would be surpising...
Paul has been informed ;)
> But how do I do that using GIT without rebasing and without
> having this ugly changeset and revert in there?
Who, me? umm, get git changed? It seems pretty clear that it isn't
matching legitimate kernel development workflow. And it is a tool's job to
do that, rather than forcing humans to change there practices.
> That's the thing I want answered, and although Al claims it does,
> git cherry-pick does not seem to do what I want either.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
