Hi,
once again. Kernel 2.6.35 is out and i want to know if there is play plan to
merge the generic kfifo API. All complains was fixed, so there is no
reason to shift the merge again. Please gibe me a short answer.
Greetings,
Stefani
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:10:54 +0200 Stefani Seibold <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> once again. Kernel 2.6.35 is out and i want to know if there is play plan to
> merge the generic kfifo API. All complains was fixed, so there is no
> reason to shift the merge again. Please gibe me a short answer.
>
Sorry, I didn't get around to looking at it. Like those 100
checkpoint/restart patches.
We'll get there.
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:10:54AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> once again. Kernel 2.6.35 is out and i want to know if there is play plan to
> merge the generic kfifo API. All complains was fixed, so there is no
> reason to shift the merge again. Please gibe me a short answer.
These have been in the -mm tree for a few major kernel releases now,
right? And they are API safe, and only change the internals, right?
If so, I see no objection to merging them now, especially as you will be
around to fix up any problems that people have, right? :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Am Mittwoch, den 04.08.2010, 12:46 -0700 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:10:54AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > once again. Kernel 2.6.35 is out and i want to know if there is play plan to
> > merge the generic kfifo API. All complains was fixed, so there is no
> > reason to shift the merge again. Please gibe me a short answer.
>
> These have been in the -mm tree for a few major kernel releases now,
> right? And they are API safe, and only change the internals, right?
>
> If so, I see no objection to merging them now, especially as you will be
> around to fix up any problems that people have, right? :)
>
right!
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:09:11PM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 04.08.2010, 12:46 -0700 schrieb Greg KH:
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:10:54AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > once again. Kernel 2.6.35 is out and i want to know if there is play plan to
> > > merge the generic kfifo API. All complains was fixed, so there is no
> > > reason to shift the merge again. Please gibe me a short answer.
> >
> > These have been in the -mm tree for a few major kernel releases now,
> > right? And they are API safe, and only change the internals, right?
> >
> > If so, I see no objection to merging them now, especially as you will be
> > around to fix up any problems that people have, right? :)
> >
>
> right!
Great. As Andrew doesn't have the time to send them on, want me to? If
so, care to point me at them in his tree, or resend them to me?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:17:24 -0700
Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:09:11PM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 04.08.2010, 12:46 -0700 schrieb Greg KH:
> > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:10:54AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > once again. Kernel 2.6.35 is out and i want to know if there is play plan to
> > > > merge the generic kfifo API. All complains was fixed, so there is no
> > > > reason to shift the merge again. Please gibe me a short answer.
> > >
> > > These have been in the -mm tree for a few major kernel releases now,
> > > right? And they are API safe, and only change the internals, right?
> > >
> > > If so, I see no objection to merging them now, especially as you will be
> > > around to fix up any problems that people have, right? :)
> > >
> >
> > right!
>
> Great. As Andrew doesn't have the time to send them on, want me to? If
> so, care to point me at them in his tree, or resend them to me?
>
One does a little more than "send things on"...
I have a little pile of kfifo changes queud for 2.6.36. The "generic
kfifo" patches are a large rotorooting of the whole facility, based on
that work (I hope).
There's also the abandoned
kfifo-replace-the-old-non-generic-api-kfifo-fix-scatterlist-usage.patch
which never got resolved with the originator.
Zitat von Andrew Morton <[email protected]>:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:17:24 -0700
> Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:09:11PM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
>> > Am Mittwoch, den 04.08.2010, 12:46 -0700 schrieb Greg KH:
>> > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:10:54AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > once again. Kernel 2.6.35 is out and i want to know if there
>> is play plan to
>> > > > merge the generic kfifo API. All complains was fixed, so there is no
>> > > > reason to shift the merge again. Please gibe me a short answer.
>> > >
>> > > These have been in the -mm tree for a few major kernel releases now,
>> > > right? And they are API safe, and only change the internals, right?
>> > >
>> > > If so, I see no objection to merging them now, especially as you will be
>> > > around to fix up any problems that people have, right? :)
>> > >
>> >
>> > right!
>>
>> Great. As Andrew doesn't have the time to send them on, want me to? If
>> so, care to point me at them in his tree, or resend them to me?
>>
>
> One does a little more than "send things on"...
>
> I have a little pile of kfifo changes queud for 2.6.36. The "generic
> kfifo" patches are a large rotorooting of the whole facility, based on
> that work (I hope).
>
> There's also the abandoned
> kfifo-replace-the-old-non-generic-api-kfifo-fix-scatterlist-usage.patch
> which never got resolved with the originator.
>
>
This patch was included in the latest version i had posted last week.
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 12:02:46AM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Zitat von Andrew Morton <[email protected]>:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:17:24 -0700
> > Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:09:11PM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> >> > Am Mittwoch, den 04.08.2010, 12:46 -0700 schrieb Greg KH:
> >> > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:10:54AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > once again. Kernel 2.6.35 is out and i want to know if there
> >> is play plan to
> >> > > > merge the generic kfifo API. All complains was fixed, so there is no
> >> > > > reason to shift the merge again. Please gibe me a short answer.
> >> > >
> >> > > These have been in the -mm tree for a few major kernel releases now,
> >> > > right? And they are API safe, and only change the internals, right?
> >> > >
> >> > > If so, I see no objection to merging them now, especially as you will be
> >> > > around to fix up any problems that people have, right? :)
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > right!
> >>
> >> Great. As Andrew doesn't have the time to send them on, want me to? If
> >> so, care to point me at them in his tree, or resend them to me?
> >>
> >
> > One does a little more than "send things on"...
> >
> > I have a little pile of kfifo changes queud for 2.6.36. The "generic
> > kfifo" patches are a large rotorooting of the whole facility, based on
> > that work (I hope).
> >
> > There's also the abandoned
> > kfifo-replace-the-old-non-generic-api-kfifo-fix-scatterlist-usage.patch
> > which never got resolved with the originator.
> >
> >
>
> This patch was included in the latest version i had posted last week.
>
Hello Stefani, Andrew,
I've reviewed the updated patch from Stefani which has incorporated the
fixes I suggested into the DMA routines. The DMA routines have my ack,
though I have not ported any code to them yet.
Thanks,
Ira
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:46:17PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:10:54AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > once again. Kernel 2.6.35 is out and i want to know if there is play plan to
> > merge the generic kfifo API. All complains was fixed, so there is no
> > reason to shift the merge again. Please gibe me a short answer.
>
> These have been in the -mm tree for a few major kernel releases now,
> right? And they are API safe, and only change the internals, right?
I thought they changed the API. But generally to the better.
The newer version seemed ok to me last time I looked.
The older version it replaced had some issues.
-Andi
--
[email protected] -- Speaking for myself only.