linux-next: kmemcheck tree

linux-next: kmemcheck tree

[Vegard Nossum]

Hi,

It seems that we have fixed those syntax errors in the kmemcheck tree
now, could you please add kmemcheck back into the mix?

(I am not sure if perhaps it would be better to wait until the 2.6.30
comes out, as I don't think we'll make it for that one, and it would
only complicate things unnecessarily? Well, it's up to you :-))

Thanks,


Vegard

Re: linux-next: kmemcheck tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1059 bytes --]

Hi Vegard,

On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:02:57 +0200 Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It seems that we have fixed those syntax errors in the kmemcheck tree
> now, could you please add kmemcheck back into the mix?

Sure.  Do you want me to use the kmemcheck branch or the
auto-kmemcheck-next branch (which hasn't been updated yet)?  No desperate
hurry, I won't be building a linux-next tree until tomorrow morning
(about 18 hours from now).

> (I am not sure if perhaps it would be better to wait until the 2.6.30
> comes out, as I don't think we'll make it for that one, and it would
> only complicate things unnecessarily? Well, it's up to you :-))

If you intend for this stuff to be merged in 2.6.31, then it needs to get
back into linux-next as soon as possible.  A test merge (of the kmemcheck
branch) into Friday's linux-next showed several conflicts (hopefully mostly
simple) - I will report on these tomorrow.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: kmemcheck tree

[Vegard Nossum]

2009/5/31 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>:
> Hi Vegard,
>
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:02:57 +0200 Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It seems that we have fixed those syntax errors in the kmemcheck tree
>> now, could you please add kmemcheck back into the mix?
>
> Sure.  Do you want me to use the kmemcheck branch or the
> auto-kmemcheck-next branch (which hasn't been updated yet)?  No desperate
> hurry, I won't be building a linux-next tree until tomorrow morning
> (about 18 hours from now).

The one we used before -- auto-kmemcheck-next. And so sorry, I didn't
realize this hadn't been updated yet. Ingo?

You can probably wait, then, I think.

>
>> (I am not sure if perhaps it would be better to wait until the 2.6.30
>> comes out, as I don't think we'll make it for that one, and it would
>> only complicate things unnecessarily? Well, it's up to you :-))
>
> If you intend for this stuff to be merged in 2.6.31, then it needs to get
> back into linux-next as soon as possible.  A test merge (of the kmemcheck
> branch) into Friday's linux-next showed several conflicts (hopefully mostly
> simple) - I will report on these tomorrow.

Yes, I tried it myself too. Nothing very tricky, I guess, for you.
Just in case, here's what my version ended up looking like:

http://folk.uio.no/vegardno/kmemcheck-next-merge.txt

Thanks,


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036

Re: linux-next: kmemcheck tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 729 bytes --]

Hi Vegard,

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 00:21:58 +0200 Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The one we used before -- auto-kmemcheck-next. And so sorry, I didn't
> realize this hadn't been updated yet. Ingo?
> 
> You can probably wait, then, I think.

I used the kmemcheck branch for today - I think it needs exposure as
early as possible.

> Yes, I tried it myself too. Nothing very tricky, I guess, for you.
> Just in case, here's what my version ended up looking like:
> 
> http://folk.uio.no/vegardno/kmemcheck-next-merge.txt

I did some of the fixups a bit differently - see my other emails.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: kmemcheck tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/5/31 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>:
> > Hi Vegard,
> >
> > On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:02:57 +0200 Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems that we have fixed those syntax errors in the kmemcheck tree
> >> now, could you please add kmemcheck back into the mix?
> >
> > Sure.  Do you want me to use the kmemcheck branch or the
> > auto-kmemcheck-next branch (which hasn't been updated yet)?  No desperate
> > hurry, I won't be building a linux-next tree until tomorrow morning
> > (about 18 hours from now).
> 
> The one we used before -- auto-kmemcheck-next. And so sorry, I didn't
> realize this hadn't been updated yet. Ingo?
> 
> You can probably wait, then, I think.

it's updated now. As usual there's uptodate conflict resolutions in 
tip:master.

	Ingo