Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181030191710.GA23042@fieldses.org> <CAHk-=wi+-POnmS41x9SKR+CB9va3ZnmRmCF8S7wNEw0QVATHXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi+-POnmS41x9SKR+CB9va3ZnmRmCF8S7wNEw0QVATHXA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:06:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgeJzBWjCafB3nKP0QMJCyh3rAjN+s6Z+T+5hfAT81YMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] nfsd changes for 4.20
To:     bfields@fieldses.org
Cc:     linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        jlayton@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:55 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Pulled,

Oh, I take that back. Semantic conflict with locking name change
(recv_lock -> queue_lock) and new code in

   net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_backchannel.c

exposed by my build test.

And looking around, it was reported in linux-next, but you didn't
mention it, which kind of makes the whole reporting pointless.

Guys, what is the point of linux-next if you then don't *react* to it?
The correct reaction is to say during the merge window that "hey,
linux-next showed this issue", just so that I know about it and it
doesn't take me by surprise.

Yes, my normal build tests caught it, and I've fixed up my merge, but
this isn't how things are supposed to work.

                      Linus