[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080128134056.GA2792@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:40:56 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, 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, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:20:30PM +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.)
Don't bother - I'm sending my patch _now_ - I've run out of time to
merge the above into this ARM tree pull (since I want to get Linus to
pull it before yet more breakage happens to it - I've had to drop a
number of branches with new conflicts as of last night to even get this
far...)
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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