Re: [PATCH] Introduce down_try() so we can move away from down_trylock()

[Rusty Russell]

On Monday 04 August 2008 18:45:07 you wrote:
> >       down_trylock -> down_try in drivers/watchdog/ar7_wdt.c
> >       down_trylock -> down_try in drivers/watchdog/it8712f_wdt.c
> >       down_trylock -> down_try in drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
> >       down_trylock -> down_try in drivers/watchdog/sc1200wdt.c
> >       down_trylock -> down_try in drivers/watchdog/scx200_wdt.c
> >       down_trylock -> down_try in drivers/watchdog/wdt_pci.c
>
> I sent fixes for all of those to the watchdog maintainer in May. The
> patches are still sitting with the maintainer. They all convert to proper
> locking rather than sem abuse, clean up all the coding style and fix
> numerous bugs plus remove BKL requirements.
>
> Wim it appears is still trying to get real life stuff sorted out so I
> think at this point we really need a new watchdog maintainer.

Perhaps if noone steps forward soon you should shepherd them through 
linux-next for the next merge window?

Rusty.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/