From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753486Ab2FZTzS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:55:18 -0400
Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:65498 "EHLO
	mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751554Ab2FZTzP (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:55:15 -0400
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:55:11 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] syslog: fill buffer with more than a single message for
 SYSLOG_ACTION_READ
Message-ID: <20120626195511.GA2959@kroah.com>
References: <4FE4AD09020000780008B77F@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
 <CAPXgP13nd7k3v3YGcW9F45L8LhT5tctw64jaooUwQ8=ypfVH+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FE829CD020000780008B9DB@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
 <20120625192007.GA1005@kroah.com>
 <CAPXgP11rkrk5LBYswPf_3nOD2e2oYnvWgbFb81NYgjta67Dj3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120626000148.GA3896@kroah.com>
 <CAPXgP10iHmADRGQ8TvmWG3-LB7PhoVFcRTF7PDPq29CWQNu65w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAPXgP10iHmADRGQ8TvmWG3-LB7PhoVFcRTF7PDPq29CWQNu65w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 02:34:49AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:35:03PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ok, so I'm confused, you want me to apply this patch and then revert a
> >> > different one?  Which one, 4a77a5a06ec66ed05199b301e7c25f42f979afdc?
> >>
> >> b56a39ac conflicts and is replaced with that patch.
> >> 4a77a5a0 should stay, as it fixes an actual problem, even with the old
> >> code, I think.
> >
> > Ok, I'm even more confused now.  Maybe I just need more coffee.
> >
> > Can you list what exactly I should do here?  Should I apply this patch?
> > Revert some other patch?  Which one(s)?
> 
> Revert b56a39ac (return -EINVAL) and apply the patch from Jan. The
> problem b56a39ac solved , is replaced by other logic in Jan's patch.

Ok, now done, there's nothing else needed here, right?

thanks,

greg k-h