[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1bpj3lvsa.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:14:45 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Am??rico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl.c: Change a .proc_handler = proc_dointvec to &proc_dointvec,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> The preferred flow is for you to just work against Linus's latest tree -
> and everyone will deal with the (mostly trivial) conflicts when they
> happen. Linus prefers to resolve conflicts himself when he pulls,
> because people mixing their trees (such as you basing on net-next for
> example) leads to various dependency problems.
Sounds right.
I'm still getting up the courage to conflict. I was wondering if I
could cherry pick a patch or two to avoid those.
Right now in the net tree there is one new sysctl and one bug fix to a
sysctl strategy routine I intend to delete.
The core or my changes are in. This is just purging dead code.
It looks like those two changes may actually be single patches so I
could cherry pick them and in theory have no conflicts.
At the very least I'm going to wait for one more build of net-next with
everything but my network stack changes before I add those.
So far the conflicts are pretty minimal so I guess it doesn't matter
much.
Eric
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists