[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6107746f-e1b2-7de3-549f-1e422163c345@colorfullife.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 21:39:26 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip
tree
Hi,
On 06/15/2016 07:23 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
> ipc/sem.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 33ac279677dc ("locking/barriers: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep()")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> a1c58ea067cb ("ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race")
>
> from the akpm-current tree.
Just in case, I have created a rediff of my patch against -tip.
And the patch with hysteresis would be ready as well.
I will send both patches.
More testers would be welcome, I can only test it on my laptop.
--
Manfred
Powered by blists - more mailing lists