From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754707AbaHFGex (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 02:34:53 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:45104 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754317AbaHFGev (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 02:34:51 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Containers , , References: <87fvhav3ic.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20140806144643.45e5dab8@canb.auug.org.au> <87lhr2tcyx.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20140806160608.218b6944@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 23:30:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140806160608.218b6944@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:06:08 +1000") Message-ID: <877g2mt9i4.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX196BAo3D7RNUi+9hILAu5MY8sSaRs74olg= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.234.51.111 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -0.0 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.0683] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject * 1.2 XMSubMetaSxObfu_03 Obfuscated Sexy Noun-People * 1.0 XMSubMetaSx_00 1+ Sexy Words X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;Stephen Rothwell X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] namespace updates for v3.17-rc1 X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:58:17 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi Eric, > >> As for missing cool tags shrug. The people looking at my code didn't >> feel like saying the magic words so I didn't include cool tags. > > Maybe you should push them ... these tags are not just "cool", they > give less involved people some indications of what has happened in the > life of a patch. Etiquette is a good idea where it helps things flow smoothly. Other times like this standing on etiquette would have resulted in trivial fixes for long standing issues not going anywhere. Althogh I will keep it in mind in the future. >> Which is a my long winded way of say it sounds like you are accusing me >> of being irresponsible, and my way of saying that I have tested and > > I did not mean to accuse, there are reasons (as you have pointed out) > that things get added late, or rewritten. I really try to avoid those reasons but I missed it this round and the buildbot did not manage to find the comibination with a build error until the code hit linux-next :( Eric