Re: [PATCH] RT: fix spin_trylock_irq

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 14:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > This is the second fix for this .. The first was in this email (over a
> > month ago)
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/31/318
> 
> You're right I missed that. (I even read it). But for fixes like this, (or
> any patches that are not in the tree), you really need to resend the
> series.

In hindsight I should have resent, but I didn't .. Really it's a matter
of frustration on my part. Where I submit patches that should be
included , but they are ignored for no clear reason .. Then I submit
again, and the patches are ignored again for no clear reason..

Comparing mainline and -rt isn't very interesting since , -rt has few
patches sent in against it .. Andrew is bound to loose a patch here and
there on accident, but -rt has so few patches sent in that we shouldn't
be loosing any.

> When Ingo posts patches to LKML on CFS, if there's a little fix like this,
> he'll add that to his next queue and repost.

That's a git tree tho , so apples and oranges ..

> >
> > The above was emailed to Thomas, but I also sent you that link in IRC as
> > a link of patches to include .. I'll be happy to audit my code better,
> > but you should also audit your inclusion process better.. There have
> > been too many missed patches, and too many double and triples fixes..
> 
> There wouldn't be if we didn't have to go looking for patches on patches
> that are out of the series. If you see that a series is broken, don't
> patch against it. Resend the series!

In all fairness you asked for links to patches, and that's is what I
gave you ..

> Patches must be against upstream, unless they are more RFC (like what
> Gregory is doing). But when you want them to go upstream, they must be
> against upstream.  I don't have the time to look for little fixes that
> you've done to your own patches that have not been pulled in yet.

Not sure what your getting at.. I specifically directed you to a patch.
I don't think that means you had to look for it, all you have to do was
include it ..

Daniel