Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758660Ab1DYRLL (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:11:11 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:62322 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755070Ab1DYRLJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:11:09 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=wEQujAeJhpQ4oYrel+OkZ/G/Aya7mwF4VZJRmA+vtyr/e+DFG1gTbDjg2IAM8xGaH+ AQonfBvn6owyr/CTBcwPgwq1zC8j27cD5+5hautD4AphBne36ErK/P9itWX6BuSnhp6I G9A87C5jl2VFgfNuNfzUrvWdsEjHKaGkgWtbY= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110425170200.GA18363@redhat.com> References: <20110418134421.GA15951@redhat.com> <20110418134501.GC15951@redhat.com> <20110425105229.GE17734@mtj.dyndns.org> <20110425152040.GA14934@redhat.com> <20110425161951.GA30828@mtj.dyndns.org> <20110425170200.GA18363@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:11:08 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: s-5zrz0EsOHWBChFbsY1DNToVpo Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] signal: retarget_shared_pending: consider shared/unblocked signals only From: Tejun Heo To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , "Nikita V. Youshchenko" , Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1339 Lines: 32 Hey, On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > I did these changes against the Linus's tree to simplify the review, and > because there are completely orthogonal to ptrace changes. Also, I like > very much the fact -mm has users/testers. > > In fact, there are trivial conflicts with the ptrace branch. I think > ptrace should be flushed first, so I'll rebase this "sigprocmask" branch > when I address all comments. > > Or do you think I should merge these changes into ptrace branch? I'd like > to keep them separate, but I am not sure if I should... I don't know. Signal/ptrace is closely coupled and you would be reviewing/acking anyway, and linux-next has some test coverage (I don't know how much but...), so I think it would be least painful to route these together. You can create separate topic branches for signal and ptrace but I don't think that's required. Anyways, yeah, if there's no objection, I think it would be best to route these together with the ptrace changes. The conflicts wouldn't be trivial and for a reason. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/