[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100120132448.GI16096@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:24:48 -0500
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
utrace-devel@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
Hi -
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 05:59:59PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> [...]
> > Including experimental code that is RFC and which is not certain to go
> > upstream is certainly not the purpose of linux-next though.
>
> Ingo is correct in what he says here. See the boilerplate:
> [...]
> Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
> to fetch)."
> I will remove this tree from linux-next tomorrow and wait until it is
> more ready for mainline inclusion.
Please reconsider. Ingo mistook what was being proposed. We request
merge/integration testing for just the set of patches posted
<http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/17/466>, which was in response to
peterz's earlier review comments, and none of which is labeled or
considered RFC or experimental.
Ananth was right that the utrace-ptrace git branch represents this
rather than master.
- FChE
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists