[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1201523373.28547.3.camel@lappy>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:29:33 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: rth@...ddle.net, bryan.wu@...log.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
gerg@...inux.org, lethal@...ux-sh.org, wli@...omorphy.com,
davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 12:20 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
>
> Peter,
>
> Mind if I merge:
>
> > arch/arm/common/time-acorn.c | 2 --
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam926x_time.c | 3 ---
> > arch/arm/plat-iop/time.c | 4 ----
> > arch/arm/plat-s3c24xx/time.c | 2 --
>
> with my patch and submit it as part of the ARM merge (which I'm hoping
> to send in about an hours time.)
not at all, please do :-)
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists