From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:41:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20080606074137.GA28962@elte.hu> References: <20080605175217.cee497f3.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080605195604.41623687.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080606071707.GB9708@elte.hu> <20080606072536.GA19334@elte.hu> <20080606003327.9ac0e91b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:38115 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763504AbYFFHlz (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2008 03:41:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080606003327.9ac0e91b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , the arch/x86 maintainers * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > did SLUB change in linux-next? There is no such problem in -tip. > > > > i just successfully booted your config on 4 separate 64-bit > > test-systems with latest -tip. (two dual-core boxes, a quad and a > > 16way box) Latest -tip includes sched-next and x86-next as well. > > What's the point in testing a radically differenet kernel from the one > which is known to be crashing? well, you Cc:-ed me, so i wanted to exclude -tip's 750+ commits in this area (scheduling, 64-bit x86) in the first step. Ingo