[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111130114128.ad9c79be.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:41:28 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
hpa@...or.com, jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com, mingo@...hat.com,
stable@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: Not really merged? Re: [merged]
x86-paravirt-pte-updates-in-kunmap_atomic-need-to-be-synchronous-regardless-of-lazy_mmu-mode.patch
removed from -mm tree
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:02:49 +0100 Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com> wrote:
> So, as of today, this seems to be back on the master branch of linux-next (I
> guess from Andrew putting it back, but I am never sure with linux-next). But I
> am not sure how/when this would go into Linus tree. I assume without any
> specific action maybe merge window for 3.3...
> We got some positive feedback on it from users running into the problem. So it
> seems like a valuable change. From the discusions so far I take that technically
> the change did not trigger resistance. For that reason I wanted to ask whether
> there is a chance that this looks important enough to be pushed before the next
> merge window...
I sent this patch to the x86 maintainers two weeks ago. It was
ignored, as were the other 11 patches I sent. Later I will resend them
all. If they are again ignored I will later send them yet again, and
so on.
--
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