linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the cgroup tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20111214161628.GC10791@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:16:31 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the cgroup tree

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:51:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 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.

Yeah there are many things I need to update to get a clean rebase.

> 
> 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?

That would be probably the easier solution.
Andrew, do you mind if I rebase these patches and target them to Tejun's
tree instead? We can keep them on a standalone branch there based on Tejuns until
we reach an agreement on their upstreamability.
--
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/