Re: [PATCH v2 17/43] microblaze: Use set_current_blocked() andblock_sigmask()

[Matt Fleming]

On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 10:49 +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> > v2 of this patch depends on "[PATCH 01/43] signal: Add block_sigmask()
> > for adding sigmask to current->blocked" so they need to go through the
> > same tree but this patch would benefit from some maintainer ACK's.
> 
> Please add there my ACK to it too.

OK will do, thanks.

> > 
> > Michal, I dropped your Acked-by because I felt this patch changed
> > quite dramatically since v1 and warrants another review. I hope that's
> > OK.
> 
> That's fine. I have run LTP tests and results look good.

Excellent!

> I will add patches 14-16/43 v2 to microblaze next branch keep them
> for a while. I will propose them to Linus tree for v3.2.

Actually, I just realised this is where it gets a little complicated. If
you take those 3 patches and they're not in Oleg's tree, [PATCH 17/43]
doesn't apply cleanly. Fixing 17/43 up so it applies without patches
14-16 would result in something like this in handle_signal(),

	if (!(ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_NODEFER)) {
		block_sigmask(ka, sig);
	}
	return 1;

Which Linus would have to fixup to its original form when he merges the
two trees. I think all the microblaze patches should go through Oleg's
tree, but it's really up to you two and Linus.

Oleg, if Michal does take patches 14-16 I can send you an updated patch
to apply.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center

--
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/