From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756079AbZFRVXv (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:23:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754099AbZFRVXn (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:23:43 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:37876 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753783AbZFRVXn (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:23:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:22:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Tejun Heo cc: Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , kyle@mcmartin.ca Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] percpu for 2.6.31 In-Reply-To: <4A39F5B4.1070305@kernel.org> Message-ID: References: <4A39F5B4.1070305@kernel.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LFD 1184 2008-12-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Please pull from percpu-for-linus git tree from: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git for-linus I'm very unhappy with this kind of crap. Has it been tested AT ALL? Apparently not. arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:98: error: multiple storage classes in declaration specifiers arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:98: error: non-static declaration of Ąper_cpu__mces_seeną follows static declaration arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:98: note: previous declaration of Ąper_cpu__mces_seeną was here .. and tons of other similar errors .. and it was apparently done on purpose, for no good reason. The bug with static per-cpu variables is only for some broken architectures. Even the _documentation_ uses "static DEFINE_PER_CPU(..)" for chissake! To make matters worse, this whole series was clearly rebased (or applied from some other queue) just _minutes_ before sending it to me. No wonder it had zero testing: - commit: Date: Thu Jun 18 16:22:05 2009 +0900 - email: Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:07:16 +0900 I'm not pulling it. Or rather, I pulled it, ended up doing other work, noticed the problems, and had to re-do my whole tree because I refuse to have sh*t like this in the kernel. And I'm not going to pull trees that get rebased like this with basically no testing before sending it to me. There's a reason I don't like rebasing. Linus