[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DDC404D.8030505@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:33:33 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] strict user copy checks on x86_64
On 05/24/2011 02:29 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> It looks like 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 got picked up. Should I resend the left
> over patches with appropriate acked-bys and tags? Would it be
> appropriate to push this through your tree?
>
I was first going to think I'd pick up 8 and 9 in tip, but since 9 is
cross-architecture, Andrew's tree might be better.
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
-hpa
--
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