Re: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 17:33 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> > <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In a hopeless quest to avoid conflicts when merging a new system call
> >> and wiring it up I have pulled in bits of net-next and the parisc tree.
> >> You have already pulled the net-next bits.  The parisc bits in my tree
> >> are:
> >
> > Ok, this just means that I won't pull from you.
> 
> Sure.  I will try to be a little more patient and resend the pull
> request after James has sent the pull request for the parisc tree.
> At which point the only unique changes in my tree will be mine.

Right ... effectively you're running a postmerge tree, since you now
depend on bits I have in the parisc tree.

Traditionally, the arch trees tend to go a bit later because they wait
to see if there's any fallout from x86; but this time, I think it looks
OK, so I've sent the pull request:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-parisc&m=130604805417277

As soon as that's in, you should be good to go.

James


> > It's that simple. We don't do this. Ever.
> 
> Hah. I seem to remember bits of pulling from non-rebasing trees being ok
> in well defined contexts.  This seems like one.  Especially when you
> have checked with the maintainers.
> 
> Plus all of the parisc bits in addition to being in the linux-next
> are trivially correct.
> 
> > Why the hell did you even worry about wiring up parisc system calls?
> > That's not your job.
> 
> Because in general it is the job of he who changes something to fix up
> every possible place.
> 
> Now maybe I went a little too far in trying to resolve the conflicts,
> but I did check with the David Miller and James Bottomley and they knew
> what I was doing.
> 
> Quite honestly adding system calls is a mess that know one seems to
> know how to do right.  So I flipped a coin and took a stab at it.

Right, the solution is reasonable and means linux-next doesn't have to
carry a conflict resolution patch for this.  It also means we agree on
the syscall numbering ...

The only real mistake was not waiting for the merge sequence: the base
trees have to go first before you can push a postmerge tree.

James