* Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> > > 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. [...]
> >
> > The build/boot robots found breakage and that is why its first
> > iteration was removed, I didn't have fundamental objections.
>
> I'll queue Peters lot up and we let Davidlohr and Fengguang lose on
> it. I run it through my own machinery, so that should work out. ok?
I'll queue them - there's only 5 locking patches pending from PeterZ:
#
# <= locking/core
#
davidlohr_bueso-rwsem-support_optimistic_spinning.patch
davidlohr_bueso-rwsem-fix_warnings_for_config_rwsem_generic_spinlock.patch
rwsem-akpm.patch
qrwlock1.patch
qrwlock2.patch
and I first delayed them two weeks ago because there was breakage, and
then earlier this week because the merge window started - there's no
'huge queue' really.
Anyway, I too agree that we can merge them.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
