From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760079Ab2CMIsR (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:48:17 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:47877 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757207Ab2CMIsM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:48:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:48:03 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Russell King Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20120313084803.GA6991@elte.hu> References: <20120313110840.7b444deb6b1bb902c15f3cdf@canb.auug.org.au> <20120313061622.GA24357@elte.hu> <20120313083310.GA27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313083310.GA27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Russell King wrote: > Please check your mailbox: > > Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:42:27 +0000 > From: Catalin Marinas > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Cc: Russell King , Ingo Molnar , > Peter Zijlstra , > Will Deacon , > Frank Rowand > Subject: [PATCH v3 1/6] sched: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() > scheduler hook Btw., are you losing emails? Because the reply from peterz to those patches, a month ago, was pretty clear: > > Russell, what's the status of these patches? I'd like to see > > them land in 3.4 if possible. I'm fine either way, I'll > > > > probably ask Ingo to pull your tree so that I can stack some > > other patches on top. You never replied to PeterZ's request, you just ignored this scheduler maintainer request and you just did it in some random way that was most convenient to you many weeks after the thread died down, ignoring everyone else's concerns - a pretty usual pattern from you I have to say. Had you followed PeterZ's request this conflict in linux-next could have been avoided, amongst other things. Given that the merge window is close I doubt there will be other, more difficult to resolve conflicts, but this incident again demonstrates your inability to communicate efficiently and amicably, forcing me to highlight it in this trivial case because it's a sadly reoccuring pattern. Thanks, Ingo