Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq_open() return value

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:31:41 -0400 (EDT)
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > Sorry, I ment Linus's tree, that's where it matters for the stable
> > releases.
> 
> The patch in question hasn't hit Linus' tree yet, but it's queued up in Stephen Rothwell's for-next tree.  As I understand it, Andrew's tree gets fed into that on a somewhat regular basis, and Andrew took my four patches (plus a patchcheck fixup he committed) already.  So, I pulled Stephen's for-next, put my patches plus the patchcheck fix on top, then wrote a fixup patch that fixes what I saw as being wrong in the patch in question.

(Please hit <enter> occasionally?)

This is all waaaaay too confusing.  For starters, please never say "the
patch" or "it" or "new patch".  Patches have names - let's use them,
and greatly reduce the amount of head-spinning.  (And I mean "names",
not git hashes, which can be different in different trees).

There are no patches againt ipc/mqueue.c pending in any tree I can see
apart from the 4+fix from yourself, which are in -mm and will be in
linux-next next time I send an update to Stephen:

ipc-mqueue-cleanup-definition-names-and-locations.patch
ipc-mqueue-switch-back-to-using-non-max-values-on-create.patch
ipc-mqueue-enforce-hard-limits.patch
ipc-mqueue-update-maximums-for-the-mqueue-subsystem.patch
ipc-mqueue-update-maximums-for-the-mqueue-subsystem-checkpatch-fixes.patch

Everything else is already in Linus's tree.

I don't have a clue what's going on here.  Let's start again.


--
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/