linux-kernel - Re: - lis3lv02d-separate-the-core-from-hp-acpi-api.patch removed from -mm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:55:28 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Éric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net>
Cc:	pavel@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: - lis3lv02d-separate-the-core-from-hp-acpi-api.patch removed
 from -mm tree

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:37:55 +0100
__ric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:00:03 +0100
> > Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz> wrote:
> > 
> >>> The patch titled
> >>>      LIS3LV02D: separate the core from HP ACPI API
> >>> has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
> >>>      lis3lv02d-separate-the-core-from-hp-acpi-api.patch
> >>>
> >>> This patch was dropped because other changes were merged, which wrecked this patch
> >> I'm confused. The other patch collided with leds/Makefile changes, but
> >> this one applies cleanly over Linus' git (updated today)... or am I
> >> doing something wrong? Could it still be pushed to Linus?
> > 
> > umm, sure, we can try that.
> > 
> > Please don't use vague terms like "the other patch".  I assume you're
> > referring to lis3lv02d-merge-with-leds-hp-disk.patch?
> > 
> > It has more problems than a simple makefile conflict.  People keep on
> > changing stuff in linux-next.  
> I'm also confused because from your "-mm merge plans" mail I had
> understood that both patches would be merged in 2.6.29, and they both
> still apply fine on Linus' tree. How come it's a problem they conflicts
> in linux-next? Is it because this is currently the merge window?

yes.  linux-next is the candidate "next" tree, and I base patches off
that, expecting that the git trees will merge first in an orderly
fashion.

Instead, there's an enormous amount of scrambling to shove things in at
the last second, thus screwing up much longer-established code.

I'm getting fairly fed up with this.

> Do I
> have to update the patches against linux-next and send them back to you?
> Let me know what you need :-)

Please retest and resend lis3lv02d-merge-with-leds-hp-disk.patch.  If that's
the patch we're talking about here.

That will result in trashing the panding changes to
drivers/leds/leds-hp-disk.c in linux-next, but hey, at least I get to
poop in someone else's bed for once.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/