pull request

pull request

[Jeff Layton]

Hi Steve,

I notice that there are a number of patches that are still sitting in
your tree and that aren't yet in mainline. Do you have plans to ask
Linus to pull them? Also, it would be helpful if you would start cc'ing
linux-cifs when you send pull requests to him.

Thanks,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

Re: pull request

[Steve French]

There is only one in my tree that I see that I had not requested Linus
to pull yet.

cifs: set socket send and receive timeouts before attempting connect

Looking at your tree there is one left to merge.

I hadn't merged 	"cifs: simplify refcounting for oplock breaks" because I wanted
to check it carefully (IIRC it wasn't "reviewed-by" anyone else) - but
it looked fine.

On "	cifs: advertise the right receive buffer size to the... " it
looks fine but didn't have
a bug associated with it so prefer to wait for 3.0.1.

On "cifs: demote DFS referral lookup errors to cFYI cifs-3.0" - before
making this
change I want to make sure that a misconfigured cifs.upcall will cause
(ie at least
one log entry to be logged until the client is rebooted) a kernel warning and
that we don't make it harder to debug the case where cifs.upcall
is missing or misconfigured by changing the error to a cFYI.

I don't think the "unneeded variable initialization patch makes the code clearer
and it doesn't fix a bug or warning - but don't have strong feelings
about it either
way.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> I notice that there are a number of patches that are still sitting in
> your tree and that aren't yet in mainline. Do you have plans to ask
> Linus to pull them? Also, it would be helpful if you would start cc'ing
> linux-cifs when you send pull requests to him.

I checked my email log I have cc:ed linux-cifs on pull requests
for all but a few where I accidentally left off the email.

> Thanks,
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>



-- 
Thanks,

Steve

Re: pull request

[Jeff Layton]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:59:10 -0500
Steve French <smfrench-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> There is only one in my tree that I see that I had not requested Linus
> to pull yet.
> 
> cifs: set socket send and receive timeouts before attempting connect
>

My mistake, I thought that Linus hadn't pulled the last round of
patches but it looks like he did. Pulling the above patch into 3.0 is
probably appropriate, and I agree that waiting on 3.1 for the rest is
fine.

Thanks,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

Pull Request

[Jason Liu]

Hi Openembedded,

Currently we are developing our kernel using morty branch openembedded
recipe and we found that there is no libvdpau package in morty branch. So I
did cherry-pick to apply the commit from master to add the bb file in.

The pull request is https://github.com/openembedded/meta-
openembedded/pull/48.
Please confirm the changes.

Regards,

Jason

Re: Pull Request

[Khem Raj]

Jason

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jason Liu <jason.liu@gumstix.com> wrote:
> Hi Openembedded,
>
> Currently we are developing our kernel using morty branch openembedded
> recipe and we found that there is no libvdpau package in morty branch. So I
> did cherry-pick to apply the commit from master to add the bb file in.
>
> The pull request is https://github.com/openembedded/meta-
> openembedded/pull/48.
> Please confirm the changes.
>

We do not follow the github pull request workflow, the github repos
are mirrors for distributing the pulls
you should submit the patches to openembedded-devel mailing list.

http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/How_to_submit_a_patch_to_OpenEmbedded

> Regards,
>
> Jason
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

pull request

[Pavel Shilovsky]

The following changes since commit ce85852b90a214cf577fc1b4f49d99fd7e98784a:

  CIFS: Fix a spurious error in cifs_push_posix_locks (2012-03-19
10:20:22 -0500)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://git.altlinux.org/people/piastry/public/cifs-2.6.git cifs-patches

Pavel Shilovsky (17):
      CIFS: Respect negotiated MaxMpxCount
      CIFS: Simplify inFlight logic
      CIFS: Introduce credit-based flow control
      CIFS: Make wait_for_free_request killable
      CIFS: Prepare credits code for a slot reservation
      CIFS: Delete echo_retries module parm
      CIFS: Separate protocol-specific code from transport routines
      CIFS: Separate protocol-specific code from demultiplex code
      CIFS: Separate protocol-specific code from cifs_readv_receive code
      CIFS: Expand CurrentMid field
      CIFS: Change mid_q_entry structure fields
      CIFS: Move locks to file structure
      CIFS: Fix VFS locks usage
      CIFS: Convert lock type to 32 bit variable
      CIFS: Separate protocol specific lock type handling
      CIFS: Separate protocol specific part from getlk
      CIFS: Separate protocol specific part from setlk

 fs/cifs/README       |    6 +-
 fs/cifs/cifs_debug.c |   28 +++---
 fs/cifs/cifs_debug.h |    4 +-
 fs/cifs/cifsfs.c     |   14 +--
 fs/cifs/cifsglob.h   |   84 ++++++++++----
 fs/cifs/cifsproto.h  |   14 ++-
 fs/cifs/cifssmb.c    |  109 +++++++++++--------
 fs/cifs/connect.c    |  129 +++++++++++-----------
 fs/cifs/dir.c        |    6 +-
 fs/cifs/file.c       |  254 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 fs/cifs/misc.c       |  117 ++++++++++++-------
 fs/cifs/netmisc.c    |    3 +-
 fs/cifs/transport.c  |  305 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 13 files changed, 651 insertions(+), 422 deletions(-)


-- 
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky.

Re: pull request

[Steve French]

Looks promising - will try to pull part of your and Jeff's requests in
next few days,
allow a little more time for my testing and for any more review feedback.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> The following changes since commit ce85852b90a214cf577fc1b4f49d99fd7e98784a:
>
>  CIFS: Fix a spurious error in cifs_push_posix_locks (2012-03-19
> 10:20:22 -0500)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>  git://git.altlinux.org/people/piastry/public/cifs-2.6.git cifs-patches
>
> Pavel Shilovsky (17):
>      CIFS: Respect negotiated MaxMpxCount
>      CIFS: Simplify inFlight logic
>      CIFS: Introduce credit-based flow control
>      CIFS: Make wait_for_free_request killable
>      CIFS: Prepare credits code for a slot reservation
>      CIFS: Delete echo_retries module parm
>      CIFS: Separate protocol-specific code from transport routines
>      CIFS: Separate protocol-specific code from demultiplex code
>      CIFS: Separate protocol-specific code from cifs_readv_receive code
>      CIFS: Expand CurrentMid field
>      CIFS: Change mid_q_entry structure fields
>      CIFS: Move locks to file structure
>      CIFS: Fix VFS locks usage
>      CIFS: Convert lock type to 32 bit variable
>      CIFS: Separate protocol specific lock type handling
>      CIFS: Separate protocol specific part from getlk
>      CIFS: Separate protocol specific part from setlk
>
>  fs/cifs/README       |    6 +-
>  fs/cifs/cifs_debug.c |   28 +++---
>  fs/cifs/cifs_debug.h |    4 +-
>  fs/cifs/cifsfs.c     |   14 +--
>  fs/cifs/cifsglob.h   |   84 ++++++++++----
>  fs/cifs/cifsproto.h  |   14 ++-
>  fs/cifs/cifssmb.c    |  109 +++++++++++--------
>  fs/cifs/connect.c    |  129 +++++++++++-----------
>  fs/cifs/dir.c        |    6 +-
>  fs/cifs/file.c       |  254 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  fs/cifs/misc.c       |  117 ++++++++++++-------
>  fs/cifs/netmisc.c    |    3 +-
>  fs/cifs/transport.c  |  305 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  13 files changed, 651 insertions(+), 422 deletions(-)
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Pavel Shilovsky.



-- 
Thanks,

Steve

Pull request

[Sascha Hauer]

Hi Russell,

Please pull the following MXC related patches for -rc.

Sascha


The following changes since commit 004b35063296b6772fa72404a35b498f1e71e87e:
  Linus Torvalds (1):
        Merge branch 'drm-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/.../airlied/drm-2.6

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.pengutronix.de/git/imx/linux-2.6.git for-rmk

Baruch Siach (4):
      mx25: remove unused mx25_clocks_init() argument
      mx25: properly initialize clocks
      mx25: fix time accounting
      mx25: make the FEC AHB clk secondary of the IPG

Mark Brown (4):
      mx31ads: Allow enable/disable of switchable supplies
      mx31ads: Provide a name for EXPIO interrupt chip
      mx31ads: Provide an IRQ range to the WM835x on the 1133-EV1 module
      MXC: Add AUDMUXv2 register decode to debugfs

Sascha Hauer (2):
      i.MX25: Allow secondary clocks in DEFINE_CLOCK
      i.MX25: implement secondary clocks for uarts and fec

Uwe Kleine-K?nig (1):
      mx35: add a missing comma in a pad definition

Vladimir Zapolskiy (1):
      ARM: MX3: Fixed typo in declared enum type name.

 arch/arm/mach-mx25/clock.c                      |   58 ++++++----
 arch/arm/mach-mx25/mx25pdk.c                    |    2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-mx3/mx31ads.c                     |    4 +
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/audmux-v2.c                   |  137 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/board-mx31lite.h |    2 +-
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/common.h         |    2 +-
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx35.h     |    2 +-
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/irqs.h           |    5 +
 8 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

pull request

[Christoph Hellwig]

First big batch for 2.6.32:  the ialloc changes + xfs_trans_iget
simplification plus the O_SYNC fixup.


The following changes since commit 1da1daed813c534263a87ffc36d5b775e65231ad:
  Felix Blyakher (1):
        Merge branch 'master' of ssh+git://oss.sgi.com/oss/git/xfs/xfs

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs.git master

Christoph Hellwig (6):
      xfs: improve xfs_inobt_get_rec prototype
      xfs: improve xfs_inobt_update prototype
      xfs: untangle xfs_dialloc
      xfs: rationalize xfs_inobt_lookup*
      xfs: merge fsync and O_SYNC handling
      xfs: simplify xfs_trans_iget

Dave Chinner (3):
      xfs: factor out inode initialisation
      xfs: factor out debug checks from xfs_dialloc and xfs_difree
      xfs: speed up free inode search

 fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c |    1 -
 fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c |   19 +-
 fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_lrw.c  |    7 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_ag.h             |    9 +
 fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c         |  805 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.h         |   18 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c           |   27 --
 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h          |    3 -
 fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c     |   10 -
 fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.h     |    2 -
 fs/xfs/xfs_itable.c         |   96 +++---
 fs/xfs/xfs_rw.c             |   84 -----
 fs/xfs/xfs_rw.h             |    1 -
 fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h          |    2 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_trans_inode.c    |   86 +-----
 fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c       |   11 +-
 16 files changed, 499 insertions(+), 682 deletions(-)

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

pull request

[jengelh]

Please pull from
	git://dev.medozas.de/iptables master
to recive
Jan Engelhardt (8):
      libxtables: recognize IP6TABLES_LIB_DIR old-style environment variable
      build: move -ldl to proper LDADD
      libxtables: remove unused XT_LIB_DIR macro
      libxtables: decouple non-xtables parts from header
      src: remove iptables_rule_match indirection macro
      src: remove unused ipt_tryload macro
      libxtables: move compat defines to xtables.c
      src: consolidate duplicate code in iptables/internal.h

 .gitignore                         |    2 +-
 Makefile.am                        |    8 +-
 configure.ac                       |    2 +-
 include/ip6tables.h                |   11 +---
 include/iptables.h                 |   11 +---
 include/iptables/internal.h.in     |   13 ++++
 include/linux/netfilter/xt_NFLOG.h |    2 +-
 include/xtables.h.in               |   22 +++-----
 include/xtables/internal.h.in      |   17 ------
 ip6tables.c                        |   35 ++++-------
 iptables-xml.c                     |   19 ++++--
 iptables.c                         |   37 ++++--------
 xtables.c                          |  111 +++++++++++++-----------------------
 13 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 182 deletions(-)

Re: pull request

[Patrick McHardy]

jengelh@medozas.de wrote:
> Please pull from
> 	git://dev.medozas.de/iptables master
> to recive
> Jan Engelhardt (8):
>       libxtables: recognize IP6TABLES_LIB_DIR old-style environment variable
>       build: move -ldl to proper LDADD
>       libxtables: remove unused XT_LIB_DIR macro
>       libxtables: decouple non-xtables parts from header
>       src: remove iptables_rule_match indirection macro
>       src: remove unused ipt_tryload macro
>       libxtables: move compat defines to xtables.c
>       src: consolidate duplicate code in iptables/internal.h

How do these interact with the Jamal's pending changes?

Re: pull request

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2009-02-11 16:06, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> jengelh@medozas.de wrote:
>> Please pull from
>> 	git://dev.medozas.de/iptables master
>> to recive
>> Jan Engelhardt (8):
>>      libxtables: recognize IP6TABLES_LIB_DIR old-style environment variable
>>      build: move -ldl to proper LDADD
>>      libxtables: remove unused XT_LIB_DIR macro
>>      libxtables: decouple non-xtables parts from header
>>      src: remove iptables_rule_match indirection macro
>>      src: remove unused ipt_tryload macro
>>      libxtables: move compat defines to xtables.c
>>      src: consolidate duplicate code in iptables/internal.h
>
> How do these interact with the Jamal's pending changes?

I think it should be fine as I am changing just the periphery here.
If it merges without git-pull stopping, after you applied his,
it's probably ok :)

Re: pull request

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2009-02-11 16:45, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>On Wednesday 2009-02-11 16:06, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> jengelh@medozas.de wrote:
>>> Please pull from
>>> 	git://dev.medozas.de/iptables master
>>> to recive
>>> Jan Engelhardt (8):
>>>      libxtables: recognize IP6TABLES_LIB_DIR old-style environment variable
>>>      build: move -ldl to proper LDADD
>>>      libxtables: remove unused XT_LIB_DIR macro
>>>      libxtables: decouple non-xtables parts from header
>>>      src: remove iptables_rule_match indirection macro
>>>      src: remove unused ipt_tryload macro
>>>      libxtables: move compat defines to xtables.c
>>>      src: consolidate duplicate code in iptables/internal.h
>>
>> How do these interact with the Jamal's pending changes?
>
>I think it should be fine as I am changing just the periphery here.
>If it merges without git-pull stopping, after you applied his,
>it's probably ok :)
>
OTOH, I suggest you could do it like Linus [states in his Git
presentation at Google], that is, merging whatever happens to be
first in the mailbox. I think that the statistical distribution
is equal anyway.

Re: pull request

[Patrick McHardy]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2009-02-11 16:45, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Wednesday 2009-02-11 16:06, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> How do these interact with the Jamal's pending changes?
>> I think it should be fine as I am changing just the periphery here.
>> If it merges without git-pull stopping, after you applied his,
>> it's probably ok :)
>>
> OTOH, I suggest you could do it like Linus [states in his Git
> presentation at Google], that is, merging whatever happens to be
> first in the mailbox. I think that the statistical distribution
> is equal anyway.

Thats why I'm asking. He was first so it would only be fair to
apply his patches first. Your's are more though so might be more
work to fix up. The easiest way might be if you apply Jamal's
patches and I simply pull everything from you. You seem to have
more remarks about these patches than me anyways :)

Re: pull request

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Thursday 2009-02-12 06:11, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>> How do these interact with the Jamal's pending changes?
>>> I think it should be fine as I am changing just the periphery here.
>>> If it merges without git-pull stopping, after you applied his,
>>> it's probably ok :)
>>>
>> OTOH, I suggest you could do it like Linus [states in his Git
>> presentation at Google], that is, merging whatever happens to be
>> first in the mailbox. I think that the statistical distribution
>> is equal anyway.
>
> Thats why I'm asking. He was first so it would only be fair to
> apply his patches first. Your's are more though so might be more
> work to fix up. The easiest way might be if you apply Jamal's
> patches and I simply pull everything from you. You seem to have
> more remarks about these patches than me anyways :)
>
Maybe I suggested too much :p
But yeah, why not.

Re: pull request

[Patrick McHardy]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2009-02-12 06:11, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>>> How do these interact with the Jamal's pending changes?
>>>> I think it should be fine as I am changing just the periphery here.
>>>> If it merges without git-pull stopping, after you applied his,
>>>> it's probably ok :)
>>>>
>>> OTOH, I suggest you could do it like Linus [states in his Git
>>> presentation at Google], that is, merging whatever happens to be
>>> first in the mailbox. I think that the statistical distribution
>>> is equal anyway.
>> Thats why I'm asking. He was first so it would only be fair to
>> apply his patches first. Your's are more though so might be more
>> work to fix up. The easiest way might be if you apply Jamal's
>> patches and I simply pull everything from you. You seem to have
>> more remarks about these patches than me anyways :)
>>
> Maybe I suggested too much :p
> But yeah, why not.

Great, thanks.

Re: pull request

[Patrick McHardy]

jengelh@medozas.de wrote:
>  .gitignore                         |    2 +-
>  Makefile.am                        |    8 +-
>  configure.ac                       |    2 +-
>  include/ip6tables.h                |   11 +---
>  include/iptables.h                 |   11 +---
>  include/iptables/internal.h.in     |   13 ++++
>  include/linux/netfilter/xt_NFLOG.h |    2 +-
>  include/xtables.h.in               |   22 +++-----
>  include/xtables/internal.h.in      |   17 ------
>  ip6tables.c                        |   35 ++++-------
>  iptables-xml.c                     |   19 ++++--
>  iptables.c                         |   37 ++++--------
>  xtables.c                          |  111 +++++++++++++-----------------------
>  13 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 182 deletions(-)

This diffstat I get looks quite different:

  11 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)

Any idea whats going on there?

Re: pull request

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Thursday 2009-02-12 06:29, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> jengelh@medozas.de wrote:
>> 13 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 182 deletions(-)
>
> This diffstat I get looks quite different:
>
> 11 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>
> Any idea whats going on there?
>

I used git diff --stat instead of whatever merge outputs.

$ git diff --stat nf/master..mdz/master
[13 files, 108+, 182-]
$ git rev-parse nf/master
8b7baebc93989106fd5d26b262d0ce191f8ef7c0
$ git rev-parse mdz/master
47a6fd9ec9891a8040eb8fd6db3c5012c1056061

HTH,
Jan

Re: pull request

[Patrick McHardy]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2009-02-12 06:29, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> jengelh@medozas.de wrote:
>>> 13 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 182 deletions(-)
>> This diffstat I get looks quite different:
>>
>> 11 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>>
>> Any idea whats going on there?
>>
> 
> I used git diff --stat instead of whatever merge outputs.

That gives the same (different) output for me.

> $ git diff --stat nf/master..mdz/master
> [13 files, 108+, 182-]
> $ git rev-parse nf/master
> 8b7baebc93989106fd5d26b262d0ce191f8ef7c0
> $ git rev-parse mdz/master
> 47a6fd9ec9891a8040eb8fd6db3c5012c1056061

Well, it doesn't add up at all, even in those changelogs you posted
f.i. the xtables.c lines amount to something in the order of 30, not
over 100. The tree looks fine from a quick look, but I want to make
sure that what I'm pulling is indeed what you intended to send me.

I'll skip this pull, please send a new request (with or without Jamal's
patches, as you like) once you figured out where those differences are
coming from.

Re: pull request

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Thursday 2009-02-12 06:46, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>> 13 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 182 deletions(-)
>>> 11 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Any idea whats going on there?
>> I used git diff --stat instead of whatever merge outputs.
>
> That gives the same (different) output for me.

I just found out that `git diff --stat` is not the right thing to use,
at least in its form that I did. With appropraite(?) measures,
I do get the expected:

 11 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)

> I'll skip this pull, please send a new request (with or without Jamal's
> patches, as you like) once you figured out where those differences are
> coming from.

Now please :)

Re: pull request

[Patrick McHardy]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2009-02-12 06:46, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>>> 13 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 182 deletions(-)
>>>> 11 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Any idea whats going on there?
>>> I used git diff --stat instead of whatever merge outputs.
>> That gives the same (different) output for me.
> 
> I just found out that `git diff --stat` is not the right thing to use,
> at least in its form that I did. With appropraite(?) measures,
> I do get the expected:
> 
>  11 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
> 
>> I'll skip this pull, please send a new request (with or without Jamal's
>> patches, as you like) once you figured out where those differences are
>> coming from.
> 
> Now please :)

Pulled and pushed out, thanks Jan.