From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:33:17 +1000 Message-ID: <1244799197.7172.106.camel@pasglop> References: <20090612102427.32582baa.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1244768406.7172.1.camel@pasglop> <20090612092054.GB32052@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:57996 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754420AbZFLJds (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:33:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090612092054.GB32052@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linus , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, ppc-dev > Ah - thanks. The bug was caused by me being a bit too optimistic in > applying the shiny-new Power7 support patches on the last day. (nice > CPU btw.) In that case paulus tells me it's actually Peter screwing up moving something from the powerpc code to generic :-) .../... > Such bugs happen, and they are easy enough to fix. What matters > arent the 1-2 short-lived bugs that do happen when a new combination > of trees is created, but the long-lived combination bugs and > conflicts. I'm not saying -next would fix world hunger ... but in this case we have two sets of issues, perfctr and the init ordering change which both got merged totally bypassing -next... We should at least -try- to follow the process we've defined, don't you think ? Cheers, Ben.