[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111219101134.3c2c0db5@de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:11:34 +0100
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:08:13 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
> > fs/proc/uptime.c between commit c3e0ef9a298e ("[S390] fix cputime
> > overflow in uptime_proc_show") from the cputime tree and commit
> > 3292beb340c7 ("sched/accounting: Change cpustat fields to an array") from
> > the tip tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> >
> > Generally, you guys seem to be working a little at cross purposes ...
>
> Agreed.
>
> Martin, could you please send Peter and me a pull request of the
> current cputime bits merged on top of tip:sched/core? Those bits
> should go upstream via the scheduler tree.
>
All of it including "[S390] cputime: add sparse checking and cleanup" or
just the fix for uptime ?
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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