On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:48:08 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Absent any objections, I'll plan to merge these for 3.18. > > This means that this patch set should *not* be in linux-next until after > (at least) v3.17-rc1 is released ... This s reinforced by the lack of > Acked-by, Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags ... (the addition of which would presumably require the rebase (or rewrite) of a published git tree.) > It would, but I sent a later reply that revised that statement. Trond pointed out that this problem can cause a user-triggerable oops, so we may have to merge it for 3.17 after all. With that in mind, I added these to my linux-next branch and will probably send a pull request before the window closes (assuming that there are no glaring problems with it). While we're on the subject, we probably ought to rename my tree in your "Trees" file from "file-private-locks" to "file-locks" or something. File private locks (aka OFD locks) got merged in v3.15, but I have been collecting patches that touch fs/locks.c > /me suspects that many people do not read his daily release notes :-( Guilty as charged. I'll try to keep up in the future. Thanks, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
