* 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

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:30:42 +1100 Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

News: next-20121115 (i.e. tomorrow) will be the last release until
next-20121126 (which should be just be after -rc7, I guess - assuming
that Linus does not release v3.7 before then), so if you want something
in linux-next for a reasonable amount of testing, it should probably be
committed tomorrow.

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'm eyeing a v3.8 merge... modulo unforeseen problems. This has 
been going on for way too long.

numa/core performs very well, and the rest can be done 
iteratively.

The mm/ bits changed very little due to the latest rounds of 
review. Most of the discussion centered around specific 
implementational details and naming - and where we were wrong I 
changed the code - numa/core sums up the consensus so far.

If I missed anything let me know and I'll fix the code ASAP ...

Thanks,

	Ingo