[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1318060551.8395.0.camel@twins>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:55:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 17:50 -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 08:01:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > @@ -2571,6 +2573,7 @@ void thread_group_cputimer(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_cputime *times);
> > static inline void thread_group_cputime_init(struct signal_struct *sig)
> > {
> > raw_spin_lock_init(&sig->cputimer.lock);
> > + raw_spin_lock_init(&sig->cputimer.runtime_lock);
>
> My 3.1-rc9 tree has just spin_lock_init() here, not raw_*.
>
> Which tree is your patch against? -next or something?
or something yeah.. tip/master I think.
> It applies with some cooking like this, but will it be right?
>
> > sed s/raw_// ../sched-patch-noraw.diff | patch -p1 --dry
> patching file include/linux/sched.h
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 503 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 512 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 2568 (offset -5 lines).
> patching file kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> patching file kernel/sched_stats.h
yes that would be fine.
--
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