On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:28:27AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> This s reinforced by the lack of Acked-by, Reviewed-by and Tested-by
> tags ... (the addition of which would presumably require the rebase
> (or rewrite) of a published git tree.)
By the way, I reshuffled my branches recently so
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:28:27AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
This s reinforced by the lack of Acked-by, Reviewed-by and Tested-by
tags ... (the addition of which would presumably require the rebase
(or rewrite) of a published git tree.)
By the way, I reshuffled my branches recently so the
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:47:36 -0400 Jeff Layton
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1000
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400 Jeff Layton
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Absent any objections, I'll plan to merge these for 3.18.
> >
> > This means that this
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1000
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400 Jeff Layton
> wrote:
> >
> > Absent any objections, I'll plan to merge these for 3.18.
>
> This means that this patch set should *not* be in linux-next until after
> (at least)
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> Absent any objections, I'll plan to merge these for 3.18.
This means that this patch set should *not* be in linux-next until after
(at least) v3.17-rc1 is released ... This s reinforced by the lack of
Acked-by, Reviewed-by and
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:43:13PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400
> Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > In the days of yore, the file locking code was primarily protected by
> > the BKL. That changed in commit 72f98e72551fa (locks: turn lock_flocks
> > into a spinlock), at
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400
Jeff Layton wrote:
> In the days of yore, the file locking code was primarily protected by
> the BKL. That changed in commit 72f98e72551fa (locks: turn lock_flocks
> into a spinlock), at which point the code was changed to be protected
> by a conventional
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:32:29 -0700
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Btw, I might be missing something here, but wouldn't it be better
> to reference count the file_lock structure and grab a reference to
> it where we currently call (__)locks_copy_lock?
>
It's not really possible with the way this
Btw, I might be missing something here, but wouldn't it be better
to reference count the file_lock structure and grab a reference to
it where we currently call (__)locks_copy_lock?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
In the days of yore, the file locking code was primarily protected by
the BKL. That changed in commit 72f98e72551fa (locks: turn lock_flocks
into a spinlock), at which point the code was changed to be protected
by a conventional spinlock (mostly due to a push to finally eliminate
the BKL). Since
In the days of yore, the file locking code was primarily protected by
the BKL. That changed in commit 72f98e72551fa (locks: turn lock_flocks
into a spinlock), at which point the code was changed to be protected
by a conventional spinlock (mostly due to a push to finally eliminate
the BKL). Since
Btw, I might be missing something here, but wouldn't it be better
to reference count the file_lock structure and grab a reference to
it where we currently call (__)locks_copy_lock?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:32:29 -0700
Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
Btw, I might be missing something here, but wouldn't it be better
to reference count the file_lock structure and grab a reference to
it where we currently call (__)locks_copy_lock?
It's not really possible with
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400
Jeff Layton jlay...@primarydata.com wrote:
In the days of yore, the file locking code was primarily protected by
the BKL. That changed in commit 72f98e72551fa (locks: turn lock_flocks
into a spinlock), at which point the code was changed to be protected
by a
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:43:13PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400
Jeff Layton jlay...@primarydata.com wrote:
In the days of yore, the file locking code was primarily protected by
the BKL. That changed in commit 72f98e72551fa (locks: turn lock_flocks
into a
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400 Jeff Layton jlay...@primarydata.com wrote:
Absent any objections, I'll plan to merge these for 3.18.
This means that this patch set should *not* be in linux-next until after
(at least) v3.17-rc1 is released ... This s reinforced by the lack of
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1000
Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400 Jeff Layton jlay...@primarydata.com
wrote:
Absent any objections, I'll plan to merge these for 3.18.
This means that this patch set should *not* be in
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:47:36 -0400 Jeff Layton jeff.lay...@primarydata.com
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1000
Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400 Jeff Layton jlay...@primarydata.com
wrote:
Absent any objections, I'll
18 matches
Mail list logo
