Re: [GIT PULL] locking tree changes for v3.16

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I _think_ tip/locking/core is empty and you could pull that into your
> > > > tree without getting tons of extra weird stuff, but if you prefer a tree
> > > > based on your git tree I'll have to do some manual stuff but that is
> > > > certainly possible.
> > > 
> > > I'd actually prefer against something like the v3.15-rc8 tag, just so
> > > that the tree is otherwise "pristine".
> > > 
> > > > Also, this 'obviously' does not have the normal tip build 
> > > > coverage, because I usually rely on the tip build robots to do 
> > > > that. But it does build and run for all my local machines.
> > > 
> > > It would be great to have Davidlohr go over it too, and if 
> > > possible have it run through the build robots. [...]
> > 
> > The build/boot robots found breakage and that is why its first 
> > iteration was removed, I didn't have fundamental objections.
> 
> I'll queue Peters lot up and we let Davidlohr and Fengguang lose on 
> it. I run it through my own machinery, so that should work out. ok?

I'll queue them - there's only 5 locking patches pending from PeterZ:

 #
 # <= locking/core
 #
 davidlohr_bueso-rwsem-support_optimistic_spinning.patch
 davidlohr_bueso-rwsem-fix_warnings_for_config_rwsem_generic_spinlock.patch
 rwsem-akpm.patch
 qrwlock1.patch
 qrwlock2.patch

and I first delayed them two weeks ago because there was breakage, and 
then earlier this week because the merge window started - there's no 
'huge queue' really.

Anyway, I too agree that we can merge them.

Thanks,

	Ingo