Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:11:34 +0100 | From | Martin Schwidefsky <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree |
| |
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:08:13 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > > fs/proc/uptime.c between commit c3e0ef9a298e ("[S390] fix cputime > > overflow in uptime_proc_show") from the cputime tree and commit > > 3292beb340c7 ("sched/accounting: Change cpustat fields to an array") from > > the tip tree. > > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. > > > > Generally, you guys seem to be working a little at cross purposes ... > > Agreed. > > Martin, could you please send Peter and me a pull request of the > current cputime bits merged on top of tip:sched/core? Those bits > should go upstream via the scheduler tree. >
All of it including "[S390] cputime: add sparse checking and cleanup" or just the fix for uptime ?
-- blue skies, Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
| |