On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Andreas Grünbacher <[email protected]> wrote: > 2015-05-29 1:11 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>: >> How is this even remotely relevant to ACL functionality, and why does >> it deserve to bypass the NFS tree? > > I've posted this to the linux-nfs mailing list for review among > others, how is that > bypassing the NFS tree? Would you prefer those things sent to you personally > as well?
No. I'm saying that changes that affect the core RPC code should not be going through external trees as part of an external feature; they should go through the maintainer trees. > This patch prepares for for the next one which changes the prototype > of the encode > functions to return an error code. Without this patch, oversights in > the next patch > would go unnoticed; with this patch, the compiler will complain. > See the comments to that patch too. There are precedents for doing what you are trying to accomplish, and they do not require changes to core code. Trond -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
