Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751469AbWCHJD1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2006 04:03:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751504AbWCHJD1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2006 04:03:27 -0500 Received: from smtp101.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.211]:51108 "HELO smtp101.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751469AbWCHJD0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2006 04:03:26 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=1J9vIk9HuRejviGMHJFOj6D63E7uyzr3rAZ4fxh0rqMNMrdAFChygVX2tNi4vcmNTBDjje/EK0YPOxY4bU2lng/C+P+IZ3hc25haCTdHUbsgVg3/oAm1cFdFUfxK2z6ezFeGNSVf+al7AwAfTxSqLr2y1nfG9giFygIyfTWtnls= ; Message-ID: <440E9DBE.209@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:02:54 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: 76306.1226@compuserve.com, torvalds@osdl.org, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, jesper.juhl@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@steeleye.com Subject: Re: Slab corruption in 2.6.16-rc5-mm2 References: <200603080129_MC3-1-BA15-47C9@compuserve.com> <440E969B.2080301@yahoo.com.au> <20060308004659.163b6e29.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060308004659.163b6e29.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1994 Lines: 51 Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >>It isn't Andrew's job to make sure a patch gets to the right place >>until it is safely in -mm, and even then he's not always going to >>know the severity and importance unless he's told. > > > Is too! > OK, partially. As this case illustrates, everybody makes mistakes and you obviously can't go back and verify you got all the patches because. The guy who hits the bug and/or writes the patch can easily see it is still not merged and shout. > >>If it was a patch to "restore" a regression in behaviour, CCs should >>at least have gone to the author of the patch that broke it, and the >>subsystem maintainers / list / etc as well. > > > I actually merged Lee's patch into -mm, copied James on it and then I > dropped it when I saw that it spat rejects against an updated version of > James's tree, assuming that it had been merged. > > Often I'll check that a patch reverts successfully from the upstream tree > before dropping it, but for an obvious one like that I guess I didn't > bother, and assumed that James had taken it. Only he hadn't - instead he'd > gone and merged something else, hence the rejects. Oh well. > You do a great job, but "push the work out to the end nodes", right? That's how we get this network to scale. It is trivial for people to verify their important patches have propogated as the release approaches. (A little harder for part-timers who aren't in the loop about exactly when the release will happen, thanks to our -ridiculous-count release system, but still easy compared with your having to double check everything). -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/