From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753590AbaFEBWR (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2014 21:22:17 -0400 Received: from g4t3425.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.53]:50719 "EHLO g4t3425.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752834AbaFEBWQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2014 21:22:16 -0400 Message-ID: <1401931331.13877.31.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] locking tree changes for v3.16 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Paul E. McKenney" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Peter Anvin Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:22:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20140603114821.GA23711@gmail.com> <1401832251.8843.3.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20140604103003.GE11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140604172220.GI13930@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 (3.6.4-3.fc18) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 14:22 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra 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. Fortunately Andrew had put it in -next for the past few weeks, and so far so good. fwiw I've gone through the code again and it is exactly the same as what I originally sent.