From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756387AbXK3U1M (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:27:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752969AbXK3U06 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:26:58 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:60020 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752052AbXK3U05 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:26:57 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:26:22 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Rusty Russell , Andi Kleen , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] Per cpu relocation to ZERO and x86_32 percpu ops on x86_64 Message-ID: <20071130202622.GA15006@elte.hu> References: <20071130064305.459255715@sgi.com> <20071130112429.GA3605@elte.hu> <20071130112645.GA7565@elte.hu> <20071130180002.GB19571@elte.hu> <20071130183512.GA8985@elte.hu> <20071130194517.GD9928@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > This was not any "formal" x86 maintainance activity - your patches are > > still cooking. But i was thinking about maybe putting these patches into > > the x86 test grind to get them shaken out some more the random 1000 > > bootup tests a day that it does. When integrating your patches I found a > > bug and tentatively reported it to you, pointing out that it could > > easily be my merge fault. Basically i was offering you to let your > > patches cook in another kitchen as well. I never before had a negative > > response to that :-/ > > You could have asked me for a patch against the x86 tree instead of > forcing these into your tree. [...] ugh? What i did was something even better: i merged your patches myself (with some caveats, which i pointed out). That's something that people consider as a "cool, you just saved me some work!" moment, not a "hey, dont you dare forcing MY patches into your tree" incident ;-) At least that's how 99.9% of the people on lkml typically see it. You really need to take a vacation ASAP! =B-) Ingo