On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 02:34:44PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 06:22:10PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:50:20AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > > Something like this (works OK for me)...
> >
> > Is this 2.6.16 material?
>
> Its been merged already.
Ups, sorry for missing this.
> cheers.
> Nathan
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Suzuki <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Nathan Scott <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Nathan Scott <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Nathan Scott <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Nathan Scott <[email protected]>
- [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- Prev by Date: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_RAM_COUNT depend on BLK_DEV_RAM
- Next by Date: [2.6.16-rc6 patch] fix interactive task starvation
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- Next by thread: Trade To Win, With Our Picks! 815nek
- Index(es):
 |