linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cgroup tree with the block 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOS58YOT9TncY_AyJneg2YtM2Jmm=pTMStuY1fEsvHhOMcwdrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:41:46 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cgroup tree with the block tree

Hello, Stephen.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the cgroup tree got a conflict in
> block/blk-cgroup.c between commit 6e736be7f282 ("block: make ioc get/put
> interface more conventional and fix race on alloction") from the block
> tree and commit bb9d97b6dffa ("cgroup: don't use subsys->can_attach_task
> () or ->attach_task()") from the cgroup tree.
>
> I guessed about fixing it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> necessary.

Yes, this looks correct to me.  Thank you very much. :)

-- 
tejun
--
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/