Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree

[Martin Schwidefsky]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:08:13 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
> > fs/proc/uptime.c between commit c3e0ef9a298e ("[S390] fix cputime
> > overflow in uptime_proc_show") from the cputime tree and commit
> > 3292beb340c7 ("sched/accounting: Change cpustat fields to an array") from
> > the tip tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> > 
> > Generally, you guys seem to be working a little at cross purposes ...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Martin, could you please send Peter and me a pull request of the 
> current cputime bits merged on top of tip:sched/core? Those bits 
> should go upstream via the scheduler tree.
> 

All of it including "[S390] cputime: add sparse checking and cleanup" or
just the fix for uptime ?

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

--
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/