[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=oksQFYtyS1+RA5c_4E22yjik90g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:11:08 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@...sta.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] signal: retarget_shared_pending: consider
shared/unblocked signals only
Hey,
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> I did these changes against the Linus's tree to simplify the review, and
> because there are completely orthogonal to ptrace changes. Also, I like
> very much the fact -mm has users/testers.
>
> In fact, there are trivial conflicts with the ptrace branch. I think
> ptrace should be flushed first, so I'll rebase this "sigprocmask" branch
> when I address all comments.
>
> Or do you think I should merge these changes into ptrace branch? I'd like
> to keep them separate, but I am not sure if I should...
I don't know. Signal/ptrace is closely coupled and you would be
reviewing/acking anyway, and linux-next has some test coverage (I
don't know how much but...), so I think it would be least painful to
route these together. You can create separate topic branches for
signal and ptrace but I don't think that's required. Anyways, yeah,
if there's no objection, I think it would be best to route these
together with the ptrace changes. The conflicts wouldn't be trivial
and for a reason.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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