On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 07:33:43AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Dec 25, 2014 5:33 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:16:56 -0800 Andy Lutomirski
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm re-adding the branch, since 3.19-rc1 is out, the change appears to
> > > still
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:33:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:16:56 -0800 Andy Lutomirski
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm re-adding the branch, since 3.19-rc1 is out, the change appears to
>> > still
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:33:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:16:56 -0800 Andy Lutomirski
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm re-adding the branch, since 3.19-rc1 is out, the change appears to
> > still exist as-is in your tree, and it merges cleanly and builds in
> >
Hi Andy,
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:16:56 -0800 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> I'm re-adding the branch, since 3.19-rc1 is out, the change appears to
> still exist as-is in your tree, and it merges cleanly and builds in
> the latest -next for me. Let me know if this will be problematic for
> any reason.
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 09:41:04AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 08:29:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 09:41:04AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 08:29:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:2
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 08:29:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 08:29:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Andy,
> >> >
> >> > The luto
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Andy,
>> >
>> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
>> > have just bee
Hi Andy,
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 23:26:36 -0800 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" wrote:
> >
> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ... You really have to be very
> > careful if you
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ... You really have to be very
> > care
On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
> have just bee removed from the rcu tree ... You really have to be very
> careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.
Hmm. They were
Hi Andy,
The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
have just bee removed from the rcu tree ... You really have to be very
careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.
I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
v3.19? If the
13 matches
Mail list logo
