[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180924071904.GB7871@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 09:19:04 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] UBIFS fixes for 4.19-rc4
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:11:55AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> I fredags, den 21 september 2018, 15:53:42 CEST skrev Greg KH:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:33:15AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >> Greg,
> >>
> >> The following changes since commit ae596de1a0c8c2c924dc99d23c026259372ab234:
> >>
> >> Compiler Attributes: naked can be shared (2018-09-20 15:23:58 +0200)
> >
> > Wow, bold move, new patches with less than 24 hours in your tree. That
> > means linux-next didn't see them :(
> >
> >> are available in the Git repository at:
> >>
> >> git://git.infradead.org/linux-ubifs.git tags/upstream-4.19-rc4
> >
> > Now pulled, but really, don't you think that they should at least go
> > through 0-day first? Maybe no one runs ubifs on mainline kernels...
>
> FWIW, we do...
That's good to know. I was just trying to say that patches asked to be
pulled in, less than 24 hours from when they were added to the
developer's tree, is usually a little "suspect" as they normally have
not had the chance to go through our "CI" systems.
That's all, I wasn't trying to disparage the UBIFS codebase at all :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists