From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Slaby Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the limits tree Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:41:00 +0200 Message-ID: <4BC5637C.4020606@gmail.com> References: <20100414135905.47494958.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100414135905.47494958.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 04/14/2010 05:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c between commit > 0c1b5ce8de67c36bbf67db38240a91f358133bdd ("core: add task_struct to > update_rlimit_cpu") from the limits tree and commit > f55db609042faecd5e518ce372b87f846659b32e ("cpu-timers: Simplify > RLIMIT_CPU handling") from the tip tree. > > I did the obvious fixup (see below) but it is probably not completely > correct. Jiri, did I see Linus ask for major revisions of the writable > limits work? Hi. Yes, but as I didn't understand the way he described and didn't get reply to what I asked, please drop the limits tree from -next completely. If I ever get it into a usable state I'll apply you to merge it again (or ask akpm again). thanks, -- js