On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:04:19 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:45:09 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > [[ get_maintainer.pl suggested 61 email address for this patch.
> > > > > > I've trimmed that list somewhat. Hope I didn't miss anyone
> > > > > > important...
> > > > > > I'm hoping it will go in through the scheduler tree, but would
> > > > > > particularly like an Acked-by for the fscache parts. Other acks
> > > > > > welcome.
> > > > > > ]]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The current "wait_on_bit" interface requires an 'action' function
> > > > > > to be provided which does the actual waiting.
> > > > > > There are over 20 such functions, many of them identical.
> > > > > > Most cases can be satisfied by one of just two functions, one
> > > > > > which uses io_schedule() and one which just uses schedule().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So:
> > > > > > Rename wait_on_bit and wait_on_bit_lock to
> > > > > > wait_on_bit_action and wait_on_bit_lock_action
> > > > > > to make it explicit that they need an action function.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Introduce new wait_on_bit{,_lock} and wait_on_bit{,_lock}_io
> > > > > > which are *not* given an action function but implicitly use
> > > > > > a standard one.
> > > > > > The decision to error-out if a signal is pending is now made
> > > > > > based on the 'mode' argument rather than being encoded in the action
> > > > > > function.
> > > > >
> > > > > this patch fails to build on x86-32 allyesconfigs.
> > > >
> > > > Could you share the build errors?
> > >
> > > Sure, find it attached below.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > It looks like this is a wait_on_bit usage that was added after I created the
> > patch.
> >
> > How about you drop my patch for now, we wait for -rc1 to come out, then I
> > submit a new version against -rc1 and we get that into -rc2.
> > That should minimise such conflicts.
> >
> > Does that work for you?
>
> Sure, that sounds like a good approach, if Linus doesn't object.
>
Hi Ingo,
I re-posted these patches based on -rc2 (I missed -rc1, it was too fast) and
have not heard anything over a week later. Did I misunderstand? Did you
want me to send them direct to Linus?
Or are you on a summer break and I should just be patient?
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
