Hi Vegard, On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:02:57 +0200 Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It seems that we have fixed those syntax errors in the kmemcheck tree > now, could you please add kmemcheck back into the mix? Sure. Do you want me to use the kmemcheck branch or the auto-kmemcheck-next branch (which hasn't been updated yet)? No desperate hurry, I won't be building a linux-next tree until tomorrow morning (about 18 hours from now). > (I am not sure if perhaps it would be better to wait until the 2.6.30 > comes out, as I don't think we'll make it for that one, and it would > only complicate things unnecessarily? Well, it's up to you :-)) If you intend for this stuff to be merged in 2.6.31, then it needs to get back into linux-next as soon as possible. A test merge (of the kmemcheck branch) into Friday's linux-next showed several conflicts (hopefully mostly simple) - I will report on these tomorrow. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpuviH46YhaS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
