From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577C6C11D2F for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:52:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3494520828 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:52:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727903AbgBXPwh convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:52:37 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:50465 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727359AbgBXPwh (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:52:37 -0500 Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1j6G26-0006oN-7y; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 16:52:34 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 16:52:34 +0100 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Tom Zanussi Cc: LKML , linux-rt-users , Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner , Carsten Emde , John Kacur , Daniel Wagner Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 20/25] kmemleak: Cosmetic changes Message-ID: <20200224155234.brdcpecpfboyjjon@linutronix.de> References: <20200224091204.xzn6cheydarek6ex@linutronix.de> <1582557503.12738.22.camel@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: <1582557503.12738.22.camel@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2020-02-24 09:18:23 [-0600], Tom Zanussi wrote: > > What should be applied instead is > > fb2c57edcb943 ("kmemleak: Change the lock of kmemleak_object to > > raw_spinlock_t") > > > > I did apply that patch (as patch 14/25 of this series). This patch > seemed like it was adding some comment bits mised for that one, which > is all it does. Bah. So I saw that (#14/25), considered okay but while looking at this patch I was comparing against v4.14.164-rt73 and forgot about it… > Thanks, > > Tom Sebastian.