From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758576AbYDQIOf (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:14:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753840AbYDQIOU (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:14:20 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:54912 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753353AbYDQIOT (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:14:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:14:01 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26 Message-Id: <20080417011401.ea3e70f0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080417002552.5742ad65.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080416202338.GA6007@elte.hu> <20080417002552.5742ad65.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:25:52 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > A quick grep indicates that only 644 of > these 884 patches are in -mm. And a lot of them only turned up a week or > two ago. I did a test merge. - About 13 patch rejects agaisnt git-kvm - Multiple minor rejects aginst the IDE tree, the PCI tree - Minor bustage of git-semaphore - Several core MM patches which I also had merged. I didn't check fully whether they are the same. - extensive damage to the page-flags patches Did you check that all architectures and configurations still have sufficient page flags for us to be able to consume another one for kmemcheck? The MM developers have put much, much effort into avoiding running out of flags over numerous years and afaik none of them even know that this debug feature is using one of the few remaining ones. What do we do when we run out? - rejects in capabilities-implement-per-process-securebits.patch - The proposed PR_GET_TSC and PR_SET_TSC have the same values as PR_GET_SECUREBITS and PR_SET_SECUREBITS. Because we never knew this before we didn't get to discuss which one needs to be altered as we normally would. - several rejects in x86-olpc-add-one-laptop-per-child-architecture-support.patch - several bitops patches (use-__fls-for-fls64-on-64-bit-archs, etc) were also in -mm. I did not check for differences between the two versions. These are not x86 patches. - maybe ten-odd minor rejects in other places. So not as bad as it might have been. kvm and page-flags are the major problems. Of course, none of this has been compiled and this proposed code combination has never been tested by anyone at runtime.