From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Zimmer Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the vfs tree Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:43:06 -0500 Message-ID: <515D9F8A.2060505@sgi.com> References: <20130404172648.27834d12cbb68338f4b89482@canb.auug.org.au> <20130403235634.6bc72c39.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20130404080248.GN21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.179.30]:59574 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761680Ab3DDPm5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:42:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130404080248.GN21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Al Viro Cc: Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/04/2013 03:02 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:56:34PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:26:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in >>> fs/proc/generic.c between several commits from the vfs tree and commit >>> "procfs: improve scaling in proc" from the akpm tree. >>> >>> I just dropped the akpm tree patch (and the following >>> "procfs-improve-scaling-in-proc-v5") as the conflicts are a bit complex. >> Well perhaps the vfs tree should start paying some attention to the >> rest of the world, particularly after -rc5. > I'm sorry, but... not in this case. There are seriously nasty races around > remove_proc_entry()/proc_reg_release() and the whole area needs a rewrite. > Tentative fix is in vfs.git#experimental; I hadn't pushed it into #for-next > yet, but Nathan's patches are definitely going to buggered by any realistic > solution. In this case I will resubmit my first patch for moving the kfree in proc_reg_release.