Hello, Andrew.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:46:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Tejun, can you please confirm that this is how worker_pool_assign_id()
> should look in linux-next?
>
> static int worker_pool_assign_id(struct worker_pool *pool)
> {
> int ret;
>
> do {
> i
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:49:05 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
> kernel/workqueue.c between commit fa1b54e69bc6 ("workqueue: update
> synchronization rules on worker_pool_idr") from the workqueues tree and
> commit "workqueue: convert to
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
kernel/workqueue.c between commit fa1b54e69bc6 ("workqueue: update
synchronization rules on worker_pool_idr") from the workqueues tree and
commit "workqueue: convert to idr_alloc()" from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (I think -
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
kernel/workqueue.c between commit 8d03ecfe4718 ("workqueue: reimplement
is_chained_work() using current_wq_worker()") from the workqueues tree
and commit "hlist: drop the node parameter from iterators" from the akpm
tree.
I fi
4 matches
Mail list logo
