Hi Catalin,
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:22:06 +0100 Catalin Marinas
wrote:
>
> I've updated my kmemleak branch now. Stephen, I guess you can remove
> this branch since I don't have any outstanding kmemleak patches.
Done. Let me know if you get enthused about it again :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwe
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 05:55:53AM +0100, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/10/12 14:06), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kmemleak tree got a conflict in
> > mm/kmemleak.c between commit 85d3a316c714 ("kmemleak: use rbtree instead
> > of prio tree") from Linus' tree and
On (10/10/12 14:06), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Catalin,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kmemleak tree got a conflict in
> mm/kmemleak.c between commit 85d3a316c714 ("kmemleak: use rbtree instead
> of prio tree") from Linus' tree and commit 48786770bf3b ("kmemleak: do
> not leak object after
On (10/10/12 14:06), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Catalin,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kmemleak tree got a conflict in
> mm/kmemleak.c between commit 85d3a316c714 ("kmemleak: use rbtree instead
> of prio tree") from Linus' tree and commit 48786770bf3b ("kmemleak: do
> not leak object after
Hi Catalin,
Today's linux-next merge of the kmemleak tree got a conflict in
mm/kmemleak.c between commit 85d3a316c714 ("kmemleak: use rbtree instead
of prio tree") from Linus' tree and commit 48786770bf3b ("kmemleak: do
not leak object after tree insertion error") from the kmemleak tree.
The kmem
5 matches
Mail list logo