Hi Jeff, On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:47:36 -0400 Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1000 > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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). OK, fine. I have merged it today in any case. > 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 OK, I will do that tomorrow. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
