[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111214175101.daac0549e5ed9d766c3a9bb5@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:51:01 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the cgroup tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpme tree got conflicts in several files
between commits from the cgroup tree and commit "cgroups: add previous
cgroup in can_attach_task/attach_task callbacks" from the akpm tree.
This got a bit to hard to resolve, so I dropped that patch and the
following from the akpm tree.
cgroups: new cancel_attach_task() subsystem callback
cgroups: ability to stop res charge propagation on bounded ancestor
cgroups: add res counter common ancestor searching
res_counter: allow charge failure pointer to be null
cgroups: pull up res counter charge failure interpretation to caller
cgroups: allow subsystems to cancel a fork
cgroups: add a task counter subsystem
cgroups: ERR_PTR needs err.h
cgroup: Fix task counter common ancestor logic
cgroup-fix-task-counter-common-ancestor-logic-checkpatch-fixes
I am wondering if that patch set should be included in the cgroup tree?
Alternatively, you could provide me with a new set of patches based on
today's linux-next.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists