From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the cgroup tree Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 11:33:44 -0800 Message-ID: <20111127193336.GD4266@google.com> References: <20111125145022.d5578c15eb900e2628a072b2@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:52799 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751823Ab1K0Tdt (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:33:49 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111125145022.d5578c15eb900e2628a072b2@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" Hello, On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:50:22PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > I don't know how to fix this up (the obvious fix will cause us to have > nested rcu_read_lock()s and I have no idea if that is allowed). Can you > please provide me with a merge resolution? I am also wondering why such > closely related work is happening in 2 different trees. Sorry about all the conflicts. There have been major updates to both freezer and cgroup and cgroup_freezer happens to receive changes from both subsystem changes. I dropped cgroup changes for now as Linus doesn't seem to be too happy with the current approach. Once an agreeable approach is found, I'll pull in pm-freezer branch into cgroup and then put cgroup changes on top of them. That should remove most of merging headaches. Thanks. -- tejun