Linux 2.6.34-rc1

Linux 2.6.34-rc1

[Linus Torvalds]

It's out there now. I still have a few trees I already got pull requests 
for, and that I want to look over a bit more (ceph, gdb tree etc), and 
it's possible that I've just overlooked some other pull request.

So if you feel like you sent me a pull request bit might have been 
over-looked, please point that out to me, but in general the merge window 
is over. And as promised, if you left your pull request to the last day of 
a two-week window, you're now going to have to wait for the 2.6.35 window.

As usual, there's tons of changes, with about 50% of the changes being 
under drivers/. With an additional 5% in sound/, which has its own 
subdirectory, and 10% being firmware/, we're looking at about two thirds 
being driver-related.

Of the remaining, about half is arch updqates (mainly arm, mips, ppc, sh 
and x86), and half is "rest". Which includes things like a new filesystem 
(logfs - as mentioned, there's another one pending too, so we might have 
two new ones in 2.6.34).

All in all, about 850 developers involved so far (there migth be a few 
dups there, I didn't check too closely), 6500+ files changed, 400,000+ 
lines added, ~175,000 lines deleted. Too much to really summarize, in 
other words.

The thing that bit me, and might bite a few others, is that if you're 
using Nouveau, you'll have to install new libdrm/nouveau_drv versions. 
Other than that, if something doesn't work, please holler!

			Linus

Re: Linux 2.6.34-rc1

[Jiri Slaby]

On 03/08/2010 09:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It's out there now. I still have a few trees I already got pull requests 
> for, and that I want to look over a bit more (ceph, gdb tree etc), and 
> it's possible that I've just overlooked some other pull request.
> 
> So if you feel like you sent me a pull request bit might have been 
> over-looked, please point that out to me

Hi, yes, the writable limits tree:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/5/219

Maybe it was ignored on purpose. Either way, I would like to know to
decide whether to drop it from -next or not and wait for a 2.6.35 merge
window.

thanks,
-- 
js

Re: Linux 2.6.34-rc1

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 15:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It's out there now. I still have a few trees I already got pull requests
> for, and that I want to look over a bit more (ceph, gdb tree etc), and
> it's possible that I've just overlooked some other pull request.
>
> So if you feel like you sent me a pull request bit might have been
> over-looked, please point that out to me, but in general the merge window
> is over. And as promised, if you left your pull request to the last day of
> a two-week window, you're now going to have to wait for the 2.6.35 window.

i was traveling the last few weeks doing training and got back this
weekend.  was finishing up the Blackfin tree now, but i guess i missed
the window huh ...
-mike

Re: Linux 2.6.34-rc1

[Jan Kara]

> It's out there now. I still have a few trees I already got pull requests 
> for, and that I want to look over a bit more (ceph, gdb tree etc), and 
> it's possible that I've just overlooked some other pull request.
  It seems you haven't pulled my UDF tree (requested on Thursday -
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1003.0/02186.html).
  I've rebased the tree on top of 2.6.34-rc1 so could you please pull
now?
  The full pull request for your convenience:

  could you please pull from

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-udf-2.6.git for_linus

  to get:

Akinobu Mita (1):
      udf: use ext2_find_next_bit

Jan Kara (2):
      udf: Fix unalloc space handling in udf_update_inode
      udf: Do not read inode before writing it

The diffstat is

 fs/udf/balloc.c |   49 +------------------------------------------------
 fs/udf/inode.c  |   34 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SuSE CR Labs

Re: Linux 2.6.34-rc1

[Randy Dunlap]

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:28:04 +0100 Jan Kara wrote:

> > It's out there now. I still have a few trees I already got pull requests 
> > for, and that I want to look over a bit more (ceph, gdb tree etc), and 
> > it's possible that I've just overlooked some other pull request.
>   It seems you haven't pulled my UDF tree (requested on Thursday -
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1003.0/02186.html).
>   I've rebased the tree on top of 2.6.34-rc1 so could you please pull
> now?
>   The full pull request for your convenience:
> 
>   could you please pull from
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-udf-2.6.git for_linus
> 
>   to get:
> 
> Akinobu Mita (1):
>       udf: use ext2_find_next_bit
> 
> Jan Kara (2):
>       udf: Fix unalloc space handling in udf_update_inode
>       udf: Do not read inode before writing it
> 
> The diffstat is
> 
>  fs/udf/balloc.c |   49 +------------------------------------------------
>  fs/udf/inode.c  |   34 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)


I have no objections, fwiw, but please change the $subject line...

---
~Randy

Please pull UDF updates for 2.6.34-rc1

[Jan Kara]

On Tue 09-03-10 09:13:13, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:28:04 +0100 Jan Kara wrote:
> > > It's out there now. I still have a few trees I already got pull requests 
> > > for, and that I want to look over a bit more (ceph, gdb tree etc), and 
> > > it's possible that I've just overlooked some other pull request.
> >   It seems you haven't pulled my UDF tree (requested on Thursday -
> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1003.0/02186.html).
> >   I've rebased the tree on top of 2.6.34-rc1 so could you please pull
> > now?
> >   The full pull request for your convenience:
> > 
> >   could you please pull from
> > 
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-udf-2.6.git for_linus
> > 
> >   to get:
> > 
> > Akinobu Mita (1):
> >       udf: use ext2_find_next_bit
> > 
> > Jan Kara (2):
> >       udf: Fix unalloc space handling in udf_update_inode
> >       udf: Do not read inode before writing it
> > 
> > The diffstat is
> > 
> >  fs/udf/balloc.c |   49 +------------------------------------------------
> >  fs/udf/inode.c  |   34 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> 
> I have no objections, fwiw, but please change the $subject line...
  OK, changing the subject line to catch attention.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

Writable limits (was Re: Linux 2.6.34-rc1)

[Jiri Kosina]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jiri Slaby wrote:

> > It's out there now. I still have a few trees I already got pull requests 
> > for, and that I want to look over a bit more (ceph, gdb tree etc), and 
> > it's possible that I've just overlooked some other pull request.
> > 
> > So if you feel like you sent me a pull request bit might have been 
> > over-looked, please point that out to me
> 
> Hi, yes, the writable limits tree:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/5/219
> 
> Maybe it was ignored on purpose. Either way, I would like to know to
> decide whether to drop it from -next or not and wait for a 2.6.35 merge
> window.

Seems like this was neither commented on, nor merged. I don't see any 
serious objections to having this merged having been raised anywhere ...

Any word on this?

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Re: Writable limits (was Re: Linux 2.6.34-rc1)

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > It's out there now. I still have a few trees I already got pull requests 
> > > for, and that I want to look over a bit more (ceph, gdb tree etc), and 
> > > it's possible that I've just overlooked some other pull request.
> > > 
> > > So if you feel like you sent me a pull request bit might have been 
> > > over-looked, please point that out to me
> > 
> > Hi, yes, the writable limits tree:
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/5/219
> > 
> > Maybe it was ignored on purpose. Either way, I would like to know to
> > decide whether to drop it from -next or not and wait for a 2.6.35 merge
> > window.
> 
> Seems like this was neither commented on, nor merged. I don't see any 
> serious objections to having this merged having been raised anywhere ...
> 
> Any word on this?

Maybe noone cars? Try to push it through akpm?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html