[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912121513190.3535@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:17:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] TTY patches for 2.6.33-git
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Anybody willing to be the guinea-pig?
>
> Replaced my patch with yours and it works the same way (except for the
> PREEMPT=n case)
>
> Acked-and-Tested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Ok, I also decided to just test it myself too (after applying the tty
layer fix) and it doesn't seem to cause any problems, so I've committed
it.
If there is dubious BKL usage that triggers the new might_sleep() warning
(and it turns out that it's necessary and not really fixable), we can
always just remove it again. But on the other hand, maybe it shows some
other potential problems that should just be fixed.
We've had quite a bit of BKL work this merge-window. Maybe we'll even get
rid of it one of these days. There are "only" about 600 instances of
"lock_kernel()" in the tree right now ;)
Linus
--
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