* Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote:actually, while there are indeed other examples where merging fixes would have made sense, those 3 above are conceptually different so we wanted to have them separate intentionally. yeah, we definitely try to do that but -tip is released daily so the window to squash patches is small in an append-only setup. There were 2 days between those fixes above so even if we wanted we couldnt squash them. The purpose of finegrained fixes is to observe the effects of the fixes. (sometimes the fix is worse than the bug it purports to fix) Anyway, i think you'll see less of these in the next merge window. Ingo --
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| Justin Piszcz | exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x1 / SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen |
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Frans Pop | svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). |
| Radu Rendec | htb parallelism on multi-core platforms |
