Re: [PATCH] sysctl.c: Change a .proc_handler = proc_dointvec to &proc_dointvec,

[Eric W. Biederman]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:

> The preferred flow is for you to just work against Linus's latest tree - 
> and everyone will deal with the (mostly trivial) conflicts when they 
> happen. Linus prefers to resolve conflicts himself when he pulls, 
> because people mixing their trees (such as you basing on net-next for 
> example) leads to various dependency problems.

Sounds right.

I'm still getting up the courage to conflict.  I was wondering if I
could cherry pick a patch or two to avoid those.

Right now in the net tree there is one new sysctl and one bug fix to a
sysctl strategy routine I intend to delete.

The core or my changes are in.  This is just purging dead code.

It looks like those two changes may actually be single patches so I
could cherry pick them and in theory have no conflicts.

At the very least I'm going to wait for one more build of net-next with
everything but my network stack changes before I add those.

So far the conflicts are pretty minimal so I guess it doesn't matter
much.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/