From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the cgroup tree Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:16:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20111214161628.GC10791@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <20111214175101.daac0549e5ed9d766c3a9bb5@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:37011 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752045Ab1LNQQg (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:16:36 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111214175101.daac0549e5ed9d766c3a9bb5@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:51:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpme tree got conflicts in several files > between commits from the cgroup tree and commit "cgroups: add previous > cgroup in can_attach_task/attach_task callbacks" from the akpm tree. > > This got a bit to hard to resolve, so I dropped that patch and the > following from the akpm tree. Yeah there are many things I need to update to get a clean rebase. > > cgroups: new cancel_attach_task() subsystem callback > cgroups: ability to stop res charge propagation on bounded ancestor > cgroups: add res counter common ancestor searching > res_counter: allow charge failure pointer to be null > cgroups: pull up res counter charge failure interpretation to caller > cgroups: allow subsystems to cancel a fork > cgroups: add a task counter subsystem > cgroups: ERR_PTR needs err.h > cgroup: Fix task counter common ancestor logic > cgroup-fix-task-counter-common-ancestor-logic-checkpatch-fixes > > I am wondering if that patch set should be included in the cgroup tree? That would be probably the easier solution. Andrew, do you mind if I rebase these patches and target them to Tejun's tree instead? We can keep them on a standalone branch there based on Tejuns until we reach an agreement on their upstreamability.