From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Getting the new RxRPC patches upstream Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:38:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20070420113805.c4877dc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070420.015838.83621529.davem@davemloft.net> <29341.1176975158@redhat.com> <2969.1176992303@redhat.com> <1101.1177056127@redhat.com> <4713.1177065706@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , ebiederm@xmission.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, oleg@tv-sign.ru, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([65.172.181.25]:46996 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767188AbXDTSjq (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:39:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4713.1177065706@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:41:46 +0100 David Howells wrote: > There are only two non-net patches that AF_RXRPC depends on: > > (1) The key facility changes. That's all my code anyway, and shouldn't be a > problem to merge unless someone else has put some changes in there that I > don't know about. > > (2) try_to_cancel_delayed_work(). I suppose I could use > cancel_delayed_work() instead, but that's less efficient as it waits for > the timer completion function to finish. There are significant workqueue changes in -mm and I plan to send them in for 2.6.22. I doubt if there's anything in there which directly affects cancel_delayed_work(), but making changes of this nature against 2.6.21 might lead to grief.