linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime 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: <20111219103513.GA17928@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:35:13 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
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


* Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:

> 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 ?

I suspect we can take it all if it's all scheduling/time 
related, and add new patches to sched/core to keep it all 
concentrated in a single tree?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/