From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757310Ab0IXS1y (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:27:54 -0400 Received: from cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.54.6]:32823 "HELO cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756389Ab0IXS1w convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:27:52 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=CCkdzHRHN/bWdd+hgzaV/8x1NZzPkOnFLGQihmOzk8rvCtUxVsdxUlcaU3rAmRsKJyfuuhStKp22tPacLXCNXYuGzE4GruqAfTfo0BedWdaz6GnXCoNYKxPAjHO5EXOi; Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:27:48 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Brian Bloniarz , Charles Butterfield , Denys Vlasenko , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Becker , "H. Peter Anvin" , Yinghai Lu , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] resources: ensure alignment callback doesn't allocate below available start Message-ID: <20100924112748.3b784624@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: References: <20100917223109.24687.17697.stgit@bob.kio> <20100917223212.24687.3519.stgit@bob.kio> <20100924100733.2e7fa2ac@jbarnes-desktop> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 67.174.193.198 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:15:54 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > Applied this series.  It's way bigger than I'd like at this point, but > > it does fix some regressions, so I'll give Linus the option of pulling > > it in my next pull request.  If he declines, we'll put it into -next > > and tag it for inclusion into the stable series. > > I definitely am not going to pull this series for 2.6.36. > > I could possibly take this first one that only prepares for the real > change and doesn't actually change anything in itself, but switching > around the order of allocations after -rc5 would be crazy. Yes, it may > help some people, but we have absolutely no idea who it could hurt. So > the whole thing is definitely something for the merge window (and > preferably pretty early there too) Ok that's settled then (though I was secretly hoping you'd pull & then release 2.6.36 without even compile testing). It's all ready and queued up, I'll send you a pull request early on so we can get some good test coverage. Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center