From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754720Ab0I2Rj5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:39:57 -0400 Received: from tx2ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.11]:53961 "EHLO TX2EHSOBE002.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753712Ab0I2Rj4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:39:56 -0400 X-SpamScore: -22 X-BigFish: VPS-22(zzbb2cK936eK1432N98dN179dN168aJ2f55kzz1202hzz8275bhz32i2a8h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-WSS-ID: 0L9IRQA-02-AP3-02 X-M-MSG: Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:39:47 +0200 From: Robert Richter To: Will Deacon CC: Ingo Molnar , LKML , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] oprofile, arm: proper release resources on failure Message-ID: <20100929173947.GS13563@erda.amd.com> References: <20100929145225.GJ13563@erda.amd.com> <1285774784.30080.19.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20100929165027.GP13563@erda.amd.com> <20100929165958.GQ13563@erda.amd.com> <1285781578.22669.4.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1285781578.22669.4.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Reverse-DNS: ausb3extmailp02.amd.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29.09.10 13:32:58, Will Deacon wrote: > Robert, > > On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 17:59 +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > > On 29.09.10 18:50:27, Robert Richter wrote: > > > > > > Hmm, these three hunks conflict with the patches I posted last > > > > month to fix the resource allocation and freeing. Can't we > > > > merge those patches instead? I have versions against -rc6 here: > > > > > > Yes, these patches are also in my oprofile/core branch and its changes > > > conflict, but are scheduled for the next merge window. This fix is for > > > urgent and for 2.6.36. We will then merge back rc7 or 2.6.36 to > > > oprofile/core and solve the conflicts. But if you don't have something > > > else for -rc7/.36 that conflicts, this should be ok. > > > > So, it would be ok then to test only this fix on -rc6 without your > > other patches. > > > > Gotcha - this is a minimal fixup for -stable which we'll tackle properly > in the merge window with the stuff in oprofile/core. In that case I'm > happy for this to go upstream now: > > Acked-by: Will Deacon > > > I also built an -rc6 kernel with this change on top and OProfile worked > happily across module loads/unloads. > > As for oprofile/core; will you handle the conflicts there or do I need > to resend my previous patches? Yes, I will merge it after it went upstream and let you know. -Robert -- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating System Research Center