Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5
From: Ingo Molnar <hidden>
Date: 2008-06-06 15:34:18
Also in:
lkml
From: Ingo Molnar <hidden>
Date: 2008-06-06 15:34:18
Also in:
lkml
* Mike Travis [off-list ref] wrote:
The patch ordering was incorrect as I removed the node_to_cpumask_map before I replaced the MAX_NUMNODES, should have been the opposite.
It needed the combination 4 failures along the line: the debug check was not complete, the ordering was bad and thus the splitup was bad as well - and then one component went missing in linux-next and the combined effect created this bug that needed a bisection by Andrew and Vegard to figure out. the moral: we now tightened the debug check, fixed the integration bug and tightened the checks we have for patch propagation. (Thomas just added the new tip-check-integration script to tip/tip that implements this) Ingo