From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754169AbZLHL0b (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:26:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754089AbZLHL0a (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:26:30 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:54865 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754094AbZLHL03 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:26:29 -0500 To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann References: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:26:27 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Thomas Gleixner's message of "Tue\, 8 Dec 2009 12\:14\:09 +0100 \(CET\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=76.21.114.89;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 76.21.114.89 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [GIT pull] bkl core patches for 2.6.33 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on in02.mta.xmission.com); Unknown failure Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thomas Gleixner writes: > On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Thomas Gleixner writes: >> >> > Linus, >> > >> > Please pull the latest bkl-core-for-linus git tree from: >> > >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git bkl-core-for-linus >> > >> > Thanks, >> >> >> Was this tree in linux-next? I'm certain I would have remembered the >> conflict in kernel/sysctl.c. Among other things in my sysctl tree >> lock_kernel() is gone. The removal of lock_kernel() happened to fall >> out of my other changes. I remember having a conversation with Arnd >> Bergmann about this, and the conclusion being was that my change >> correct and superior to this patch. So I'm surprised a sysctl change >> made it into your tree. > > Sorry, that change was excluded from next and I completely forgot > about your patches when I was preparing the pull request. Zapped the > commit in question already. Thanks. That is one less minor conflict to worry about. Eric