From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758385AbZFJU6S (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:58:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756546AbZFJU6G (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:58:06 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:53424 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756277AbZFJU6E (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:58:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:57:49 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mpm@selenic.com, npiggin@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31 Message-ID: <20090610205749.GA9321@elte.hu> References: <4A3017D1.5010708@cs.helsinki.fi> <20090610204318.GA8147@elte.hu> <84144f020906101347y3e250f4bme2d1c60dd5993ffc@mail.gmail.com> <20090610205026.GC8147@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090610205026.GC8147@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > What kind of conflicts are there against -tip? The diffstat > > > suggests it's mostly in-SLAB code, right? There shouldnt be > > > much to conflict, except kmemcheck - which has more or less > > > trivial callbacks there. > > > > The conflicting bits are the patches that remove bootmem > > allocator uses in arch/x86 and kernel/sched.c. > > Give me an hour and i'll get some minimal testing done. This tree doesnt conflict (not even with kmecheck) - and the older bits you sent against the scheduler and against x86 doesnt apply anymore - but they do look scary. How about this: i can send the scheduler and x86 bits to Linus right now, that should make it possible to have a clean base for you and no interactions with anything pending? Ingo