Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:26:01 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the block tree |
| |
On 2010-06-22 02:40, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:04:23AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:40:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:13:00 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I took a look, and all of the changes from "fs: remove all rcu head >>>> initializations, except on_stack initializations" are reflected in -next. >>> >>> Thanks for checking. >> >> Is there some way that this commit can be merged via the block tree? Or >> does later work in your tree depend on it? There is considerable and >> ongoing work in the block tree on the same areas as your commit changes. >> Even today, this conflict is going to be much worse. > > I have no problem with this patch being applied via the block tree, as > long as it doesn't take too many minor releases for it to hit mainline. ;-) > > How would everyone like to proceed?
The stuff in the block tree is either destined for the current release or the next one, the patches going into for-next are a merge of those two parts.
Is this rcu patch for .35 or .36?
-- Jens Axboe
| |