From: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the vfs tree
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:43:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <515D9F8A.2060505@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130404080248.GN21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On 04/04/2013 03:02 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:56:34PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:26:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
>>> fs/proc/generic.c between several commits from the vfs tree and commit
>>> "procfs: improve scaling in proc" from the akpm tree.
>>>
>>> I just dropped the akpm tree patch (and the following
>>> "procfs-improve-scaling-in-proc-v5") as the conflicts are a bit complex.
>> Well perhaps the vfs tree should start paying some attention to the
>> rest of the world, particularly after -rc5.
> I'm sorry, but... not in this case. There are seriously nasty races around
> remove_proc_entry()/proc_reg_release() and the whole area needs a rewrite.
> Tentative fix is in vfs.git#experimental; I hadn't pushed it into #for-next
> yet, but Nathan's patches are definitely going to buggered by any realistic
> solution.
In this case I will resubmit my first patch for moving the kfree in
proc_reg_release.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
<linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the vfs tree
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:43:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <515D9F8A.2060505@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130404080248.GN21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On 04/04/2013 03:02 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:56:34PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:26:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
>>> fs/proc/generic.c between several commits from the vfs tree and commit
>>> "procfs: improve scaling in proc" from the akpm tree.
>>>
>>> I just dropped the akpm tree patch (and the following
>>> "procfs-improve-scaling-in-proc-v5") as the conflicts are a bit complex.
>> Well perhaps the vfs tree should start paying some attention to the
>> rest of the world, particularly after -rc5.
> I'm sorry, but... not in this case. There are seriously nasty races around
> remove_proc_entry()/proc_reg_release() and the whole area needs a rewrite.
> Tentative fix is in vfs.git#experimental; I hadn't pushed it into #for-next
> yet, but Nathan's patches are definitely going to buggered by any realistic
> solution.
In this case I will resubmit my first patch for moving the kfree in
proc_reg_release.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-04 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-04 6:26 linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the vfs tree Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-04 6:56 ` Andrew Morton
2013-04-04 7:02 ` Andrew Morton
2013-04-04 8:10 ` Al Viro
2013-04-04 23:18 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-04 8:02 ` Al Viro
2013-04-04 15:43 ` Nathan Zimmer [this message]
2013-04-04 15:43 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-04 15:53 ` [PATCH resend] fs/proc: Move kfree outside pde_unload_lock Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-04 16:11 ` Al Viro
2013-04-04 17:12 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-04 20:44 ` Al Viro
2013-04-05 17:05 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-05 17:36 ` Al Viro
2013-04-05 20:56 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-05 21:00 ` Al Viro
2013-04-08 15:34 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-08 15:58 ` Al Viro
2013-04-08 16:42 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-08 20:52 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-08 21:23 ` Al Viro
2013-04-08 21:48 ` hangs on boot in 9984d7394618df9 Al Viro
2013-04-08 22:17 ` Stephen Warren
2013-04-08 22:45 ` Doug Anderson
2013-04-08 23:06 ` Al Viro
2013-04-08 23:20 ` Stephen Warren
2013-04-08 23:46 ` Doug Anderson
2013-04-09 17:12 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-09 17:12 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-08 22:46 ` Al Viro
2013-04-08 22:57 ` Al Viro
2013-04-08 21:56 ` [PATCH resend] fs/proc: Move kfree outside pde_unload_lock Nathan Zimmer
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-05-15 11:33 linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the vfs tree Stephen Rothwell
2019-04-11 6:21 Stephen Rothwell
2018-05-17 6:36 Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-02 6:46 Stephen Rothwell
2016-12-12 5:52 Stephen Rothwell
2016-12-12 8:14 ` Ian Kent
2014-08-08 6:20 Stephen Rothwell
2013-09-10 4:41 Stephen Rothwell
2013-09-05 8:56 Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-30 5:54 Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-29 8:34 Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-29 8:25 Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-04 6:17 Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-04 6:12 Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-04 12:33 ` Jan Kara
2013-04-04 6:04 Stephen Rothwell
2013-02-25 3:40 Stephen Rothwell
2012-09-24 13:40 Stephen Rothwell
2012-09-24 13:12 Stephen Rothwell
2012-09-24 13:06 Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-22 5:44 Stephen Rothwell
2011-07-18 8:55 Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=515D9F8A.2060505@sgi.com \
--to=nzimmer@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.