linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the limits tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:41:00 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the limits tree

On 04/14/2010 05:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
> kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c between commit
> 0c1b5ce8de67c36bbf67db38240a91f358133bdd ("core: add task_struct to
> update_rlimit_cpu") from the limits tree and commit
> f55db609042faecd5e518ce372b87f846659b32e ("cpu-timers: Simplify
> RLIMIT_CPU handling") from the tip tree.
> 
> I did the obvious fixup (see below) but it is probably not completely
> correct.   Jiri, did I see Linus ask for major revisions of the writable
> limits work?

Hi. Yes, but as I didn't understand the way he described and didn't get
reply to what I asked, please drop the limits tree from -next
completely. If I ever get it into a usable state I'll apply you to merge
it again (or ask akpm again).

thanks,
-- 
js
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/