Thread (21 messages) 21 messages, 10 authors, 2012-11-15

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 14

From: Stephen Rothwell <hidden>
Date: 2012-11-14 07:15:46
Also in: lkml

Hi Andrew,

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:56:35 -0800 Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:47:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
* Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
It would help if the old sched/numa code wasn't in -next while 
you're away.  That would give me a clean run at 3.7 and will 
make it easier for others to integrate and test the four(!) 
different autoschednumacore implementations on top of 
linux-next.

Pretty please?
The next integration should have this solved: I have removed the 
old sched/numa bits, replaced by the latest rebased/reworked 
numa/core bits.
That solves one problem, but I still need to route around the numa
stuff when preparing the 3.8-rc1 merge.  Again!
I am not sure what is actually involved here, but would it help if I
made you a new akpm-base with the old tip tree replaced by the new one
that Ingo just pushed out?  Or are there still problematic things in the
tip tree?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

Attachments

  • (unnamed) [application/pgp-signature] 836 bytes
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help