On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:05:18AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply
> it?
I believe this is also applicable to the 3.5 kernel. Queuing it
Cheers,
--
Luis
>
> --
>
> From: "Steven Whitehouse "
>
> commit
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:05:18AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply
it?
I believe this is also applicable to the 3.5 kernel. Queuing it
Cheers,
--
Luis
--
From: Steven Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 11:05 +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply
> it?
>
Yes, that seems reasonable to me,
Steve.
> --
>
> From: "Steven Whitehouse "
>
> commit c2952d202f710d326ac36a8ea6bd216b20615ec8
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 11:05 +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply
it?
Yes, that seems reasonable to me,
Steve.
--
From: Steven Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com
commit
This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply
it?
--
From: "Steven Whitehouse "
commit c2952d202f710d326ac36a8ea6bd216b20615ec8 upstream
When withdraw occurs, we need to continue to allow unlocks of fcntl
locks to occur, however these will only be
This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply
it?
--
From: Steven Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com
commit c2952d202f710d326ac36a8ea6bd216b20615ec8 upstream
When withdraw occurs, we need to continue to allow unlocks of fcntl
locks to occur, however
6 matches
Mail list logo