lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-23 08:21    [W:0.044 / U:3.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site