linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] locking tree changes for v3.16

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]

Date:	Thu, 5 Jun 2014 10:29:29 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] locking tree changes for v3.16


* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I _think_ tip/locking/core is empty and you could pull that into your
> > > > tree without getting tons of extra weird stuff, but if you prefer a tree
> > > > based on your git tree I'll have to do some manual stuff but that is
> > > > certainly possible.
> > > 
> > > I'd actually prefer against something like the v3.15-rc8 tag, just so
> > > that the tree is otherwise "pristine".
> > > 
> > > > Also, this 'obviously' does not have the normal tip build 
> > > > coverage, because I usually rely on the tip build robots to do 
> > > > that. But it does build and run for all my local machines.
> > > 
> > > It would be great to have Davidlohr go over it too, and if 
> > > possible have it run through the build robots. [...]
> > 
> > The build/boot robots found breakage and that is why its first 
> > iteration was removed, I didn't have fundamental objections.
> 
> I'll queue Peters lot up and we let Davidlohr and Fengguang lose on 
> it. I run it through my own machinery, so that should work out. ok?

I'll queue them - there's only 5 locking patches pending from PeterZ:

 #
 # <= locking/core
 #
 davidlohr_bueso-rwsem-support_optimistic_spinning.patch
 davidlohr_bueso-rwsem-fix_warnings_for_config_rwsem_generic_spinlock.patch
 rwsem-akpm.patch
 qrwlock1.patch
 qrwlock2.patch

and I first delayed them two weeks ago because there was breakage, and 
then earlier this week because the merge window started - there's no 
'huge queue' really.

Anyway, I too agree that we can merge them.

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/