* Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Olof's patch is in the linux-release tree, so this brings up a point > >>regarding merging. If the quick fix is to be replaced by a better fix > >>later (as in this case) there's some room for merge conflict. Does this > >>pose a problem for either -mm or Linus' tree? > > > >It depends who gets to Linus's tree first. If linux-release merges first, > >I just revert the temp fix while adding the real fix. But the temp fix > >should never have gone into Linus's tree in the first place.
Consider it first patch in fixup series ;-) > >If I merge before linux-release, I guess Linus has some conflict resolving > >to do when he pulls from linux-release. That's OK for an obvious > >two-liner, but would get out of control for more substantial things. > > > >Neither solution is acceptable, really. I suspect the idea of pulling > >linux-release into mainline won't work very well, and that making it a > >backport tree would be more practical. > > Maybe you're right, but I tend to think that "quick, get that fix out > immediately" fixes will appear before more substantial fixes. That is > certainly the way things have worked up until now. > > For the cases that we care about, putting that into linux-release and > then pulling would seem more appropriate. Yes, and this case was on the border of a newly existing system. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
