From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:04:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20120715120457.GJ31729@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20120705173526.bf8772adb18edfc91adddea8@canb.auug.org.au> <20120705075204.GA12344@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120715112735.GI31729@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Russell King , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Al, > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:52:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > >> Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for the signal handling. > > > > Could you please resend whatever concerns those had been my way? > > The last I've seen from Will had been about the stuff in mainline, > > not in -next; I might have missed something quite easily, though - > > net.access had been really lousy lately and piles in l-k mbox... ouch. > > Speaking about -next, there's still this fix for an avr32 regression: Yeah, grabbed it. Will be in the next rebase (hopefully in a few hours).