[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110414092519.GA18329@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:25:19 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 13:14 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in kernel/sched.c
> > between commit 6631e635c65d ("block: don't flush plugged IO on forced
> > preemtion scheduling") from Linus' tree and commits 098247b90a9e ("sched:
> > Provide p->on_rq") and a3380736e4b3 ("sched: Also serialize ttwu_local()
> > with p->pi_lock") from the tip tree.
> >
> > I fixed them up (hopefully - see below) and can carry the fix as
> > necessary.
>
> It looks like Ingo accidentially published an older version of these patches
> because I also got a UP build error from Tony yesterday.
It was intentionally published.
> A new series was merged this morning which should hopefully address both
> problems.
Yes.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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