Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the cgroup tree

2014-02-14 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 14-02-14 09:33:45, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > I do not see spin_unlock -> mutex_unlock at the very end of this function. Scratch that. That part apparently didn't conflict so it wasn't in the merge commit. Sorry about the noise -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: s

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the cgroup tree

2014-02-14 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 14-02-14 15:34:14, Stephen Rothwell wrote: [...] > diff --cc mm/memcontrol.c > index d9c6ac1532e6,de1a2aed4954.. > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@@ -1683,25 -1683,54 +1683,25 @@@ static void move_unlock_mem_cgroup(stru >*/ > void mem_cgroup_print_oom_info

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the cgroup tree

2014-02-13 Thread Stephen Rothwell
[Just adding Tejun] On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:25:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in > kernel/cpuset.c between commit d66393e54e0a ("cpuset: use > css_task_iter_start/next/end() instead of css_scan_tasks()") from t