Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:43:28 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tiny tree with the tip tree |
| |
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Josh, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tiny tree got conflicts in > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c and arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c between > commits dc56c0f9b870 ("x86, fpu: Shift "fpu_counter = 0" from > copy_thread() to arch_dup_task_struct()") and 6f46b3aef003 ("x86: > copy_thread: Don't nullify ->ptrace_bps twice") from the tip tree and > commits a1cf09f93e66 ("x86: process: Unify 32-bit and 64-bit > copy_thread I/O bitmap handling") and e4a191d1e05b ("x86: Support > compiling out userspace I/O (iopl and ioperm)") from the tiny tree.
Why are such changes in the 'tiny' tree? These are sensitive arch/x86 files, and any unification and compilation-out support patches need to go through the proper review channels and be merged upstream via the x86 tree if accepted...
In particular the graticious sprinking of #ifdef CONFIG_X86_IOPORTs around x86 code looks ugly.
Josh, don't do that, this route is really unacceptable. Please resubmit the latest patches and remove these from linux-next.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |