On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:57:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> regarding your point wrt. path of integration - it is pretty much the
> only practical way to do this centrally as part of the lock validator
> patches, but to collect ACKs from subsystem maintainers in the process.
> So if you like it i'd like to have your ACK but this patch depends on
> the other lock validator patches (and only makes sense together with
> them), so they should temporarily stay in the lock validator queue.
> Hopefully this wont be a state that lasts too long and once the
> validator is upstream, all patches of course go via the subsystem
> submission rules.
Obviously as long as Dave is happy with it then it's fine. However,
it's probably a good idea to cc netdev for relevant patches so that
they get a wider review. If you've already sent this one there then
I apologise for missing it :)
> (the #ifdef LOCKDEP should probably be converted to some sort of
> lockdep_split_lock_key(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock) op - i'll do that
> later)
Cool.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
