Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 11:23 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Hi Philippe,
>>> I got some changes ready for head. What we want to include in the stable
>>> branch remains to be discussed, once we agree, I will prepare another
>>> branch for v2.4.x patches.
>> No objection to merge back FPU fixes to 2.4.x before we close that
>> branch, when 2.5 is out. This would give us some time to make sure
>> everything is fine while running the -rc series.
> Ok. I was thinking that it may be dangerous to merge the "Optimize x86
> fpu switches" patch, since it is not strictly necessary. But from the
> point of view of getting it tested ASAP by users, you are right. The
> concern about switchtest is that the changes once again break the driver
> ABI.
>>> The following changes since commit bbbaec33689d8e82b604745bb55209a83d79a4bc:
>>>   Philippe Gerum (1):
>>>         Test for self-deletion in a safer way
>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>   git:// for-upstream
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix (4):
>>>       Improve switchtest coverage.
>>>       x86 FPU fixes
>>>       Optimize x86 fpu switches.
>>>       Fix rt_task_trampoline and rt_task_shadow error paths.
>> I'm generally ok with the patches, but the last one still leaves an
>> issue open: if the child thread dies upon -ENOMEM, the creator won't be
>> unblocked from pending on the completion sync in rt_task_create(). We
>> could live with this for a while (lacking memory at that point is a
>> clear sign that things are going to turn ugly very soon anyway), but
>> would we want to fix this, we would have to either fire the
>> __rt_task_create syscall with some NULL args and let it notice them,
>> then signal the completion block with an error status, or have something
>> like __xn_sys_sigcompletion to unblock the waiter directly from
>> userland.
> I just reused the "fail" label of rt_task_trampoline without thinking
> about the consequences. Will try to see which idea is simpler to
> implement. In any case, I am afraid we will get yet another ABI change.
> A question about git now: can I "git reset" or "git branch -D" a remote
> branch ?

Just add '-f' to your push command if you have dropped or updated some
patch that is already present in the remote repos (I'm always doing this
when pushing my stgit-managed patch queues).

Deleting a branch remotely is something I haven't tried yet, but the
examples in 'man git-push' claim it works.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to