[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z8uLMtcrWNMPqFrc@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:11:30 -0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
"open list:RUST:Keyword:b(?i:rust)b" <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH locking 00/11] LOCKDEP and Rust locking changes for v6.15
On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 01:11:36AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[...]
> > > I've applied these 3 patches to the tip:locking/urgent tree:
> > >
> > > locking/semaphore: Use wake_q to wake up processes outside lock critical section
> > > locking/rtmutex: Use the 'struct' keyword in kernel-doc comment
> > > rust: lockdep: Remove support for dynamically allocated LockClassKeys
> > >
> > > As a general rule, if a patch is marked Cc: stable, it must also be
> > > applied to current upstream.
> > >
> >
> > Do you prefer a separate pull request for the future? I can send one for
> > urgent and one for locking/core.
>
> One tree is fine - maybe indicate which ones are urgent material and
> keep them at the head of the tree?
>
Sounds good to me, will do.
Regards,
Boqun
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists