On Mon, 5 May 2008 17:16:57 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>=
 wrote:
quoted text
>
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:55:01 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@davemloft.ne=
t> wrote:
quoted text
>=20
> As we discussed last week, I won't carry these patches because they're
> already upstream.  It turns out that "upstream" in this case is linux-next
> itself, which is an unexpected place for patches to be mastered.

Yeah, true.

quoted text
> So I suggest that Stephen send patches such as this into Linus sooner
> rather than later.  Because nobody else will.

Right, I know that now :-)

quoted text
> Well.  They _might_.  In this case Len could merge the patch in which case
> Stephen would drop it and the fix would dawdle around in the acpi tree for
> a while.

I guess that was my hope ...

quoted text
> Ho hum, hopefully this isn't a common case.  Often Linus or I will just do
> a maintainer bypass on things like this, but my ability to do that is now
> much reduced because a) I can't merge the patch and b) when I _do_ try to
> do that, it's "huh, we already fixed it".

This is an uncommon case because normally I would just revert the
patch/tree that caused the problem.  In this case, the problem didn't
show up until after the linux-tree had been released so when the fix
patches turned up the next day I added them in the hope that someone else
would pick them up soon i.e. before they were needed in Linus' tree.  I
now know better.  :-)

quoted text
> So... I hereby appoint Stephen random-build-fix-monkey.

Rats! :-)

--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/