Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756231Ab1DZTrI (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:47:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41770 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752515Ab1DZTrH (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:47:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:45:36 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Tejun Heo Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , "Nikita V. Youshchenko" , Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] signal: retarget_shared_pending: consider shared/unblocked signals only Message-ID: <20110426194536.GA7590@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1659 Lines: 39 Hi, On 04/25, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. OK. I tried to update my branch to address the comments from you and Matt, but I got lost inside the git-learning-curve. Will do tomorrow. Until then, could you review the updated version of the new changes we discussed yesterday? (will send in a minute). Oleg. -- 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/