2009/5/31 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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). The one we used before -- auto-kmemcheck-next. And so sorry, I didn't realize this hadn't been updated yet. Ingo? You can probably wait, then, I think. > >> (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. Yes, I tried it myself too. Nothing very tricky, I guess, for you. Just in case, here's what my version ended up looking like: http://folk.uio.no/vegardno/kmemcheck-next-merge.txt Thanks, Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
