Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Jun 2014 10:29:29 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] locking tree changes for v3.16 |
| |
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > I _think_ tip/locking/core is empty and you could pull that into your > > > > tree without getting tons of extra weird stuff, but if you prefer a tree > > > > based on your git tree I'll have to do some manual stuff but that is > > > > certainly possible. > > > > > > I'd actually prefer against something like the v3.15-rc8 tag, just so > > > that the tree is otherwise "pristine". > > > > > > > Also, this 'obviously' does not have the normal tip build > > > > coverage, because I usually rely on the tip build robots to do > > > > that. But it does build and run for all my local machines. > > > > > > It would be great to have Davidlohr go over it too, and if > > > possible have it run through the build robots. [...] > > > > The build/boot robots found breakage and that is why its first > > iteration was removed, I didn't have fundamental objections. > > I'll queue Peters lot up and we let Davidlohr and Fengguang lose on > it. I run it through my own machinery, so that should work out. ok?
I'll queue them - there's only 5 locking patches pending from PeterZ:
# # <= locking/core # davidlohr_bueso-rwsem-support_optimistic_spinning.patch davidlohr_bueso-rwsem-fix_warnings_for_config_rwsem_generic_spinlock.patch rwsem-akpm.patch qrwlock1.patch qrwlock2.patch
and I first delayed them two weeks ago because there was breakage, and then earlier this week because the merge window started - there's no 'huge queue' really.
Anyway, I too agree that we can merge them.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |