Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

2012-08-04 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Al, On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Al Viro wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:52:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote: >> >> Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

2012-07-15 Thread Al Viro
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Al, > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:52:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > >> Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for the signal handling. > > > > Could you please rese

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

2012-07-15 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Al, On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:52:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote: >> Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for the signal handling. > > Could you please resend whatever concerns those had been my way? > The last I've seen from Will had bee

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

2012-07-15 Thread Al Viro
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:52:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:35:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Al, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the signal tree got a conflict in > > arch/arm/kernel/signal.c between commit f73e2ca64281 ("ARM: 7443/1: > > Revert "new