* Tejun Heo [off-list ref] wrote:

Hello, Ingo.

11/26/2009 06:26 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted

quoted

Sure, which sched/* branch should I base these patches on?

You could send the patch you rely on standalone (it seems to be a single 
patch) and we can look at applying it to the scheduler tree. That 
reduces the conflicts on an ongoing basis. Please Cc: PeterZ and Mike 
Galbraith as well.

The tree contains four scheduler patches.

0001-sched-rename-preempt_notifier-to-sched_notifier-and-.patch
0002-sched-update-sched_notifier-and-add-wakeup-sleep-not.patch
0003-sched-implement-sched_notifier_wake_up_process.patch
0004-sched-implement-force_cpus_allowed.patch

1, 2 and 4 are somewhat spread throughout sched.c so it would be
better if they all are routed through sched tree.  Currently the
wq#for-sched contains the followings on top of linus#master.

* Adds debugobj support to workqueue.

* Pulls in sched/urgent to receive the scheduler fix.

* Adds the above four patches.

If pulling in from the existing branch is an option, I'd prefer that. 
If not, please let me know.  I'll send the above four patches against 
sched/urgent.

I've merged sched/urgent into sched/core and pushed it out - mind basing 
any sched.c patches on top of that and send a series of scheduler-only 
patches?

Thanks,

	Ingo