On 2010-06-22 02:40, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:04:23AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:40:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:13:00 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> I took a look, and all of the changes from "fs: remove all rcu head >>>> initializations, except on_stack initializations" are reflected in -next. >>> >>> Thanks for checking. >> >> Is there some way that this commit can be merged via the block tree? Or >> does later work in your tree depend on it? There is considerable and >> ongoing work in the block tree on the same areas as your commit changes. >> Even today, this conflict is going to be much worse. > > I have no problem with this patch being applied via the block tree, as > long as it doesn't take too many minor releases for it to hit mainline. ;-) > > How would everyone like to proceed? The stuff in the block tree is either destined for the current release or the next one, the patches going into for-next are a merge of those two parts. Is this rcu patch for .35 or .36? -- Jens Axboe -- 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
