From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [patch] undo AF_UNIX _bh locking changes and split lock-type instead Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060612.001829.49243997.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20060612064122.GA1101@gondor.apana.org.au> <20060612065701.GA24213@elte.hu> <20060612070356.GA1273@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@osdl.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, jirislaby@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mingo@redhat.com, arjan@infradead.org Return-path: To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au In-Reply-To: <20060612070356.GA1273@gondor.apana.org.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux1394-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: linux1394-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Herbert Xu Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:03:56 +1000 > On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:57:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > regarding your point wrt. path of integration - it is pretty much the > > only practical way to do this centrally as part of the lock validator > > patches, but to collect ACKs from subsystem maintainers in the process. > > So if you like it i'd like to have your ACK but this patch depends on > > the other lock validator patches (and only makes sense together with > > them), so they should temporarily stay in the lock validator queue. > > Hopefully this wont be a state that lasts too long and once the > > validator is upstream, all patches of course go via the subsystem > > submission rules. > > Obviously as long as Dave is happy with it then it's fine. However, > it's probably a good idea to cc netdev for relevant patches so that > they get a wider review. If you've already sent this one there then > I apologise for missing it :) Yes, this is fine with me.