Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 14

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:15:36 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:56:35 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:47:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 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?

If this new code is targeted at 3.9 as I'm suggesting then it should go
into -next after 3.8-rc1, so the sched/numa part of -tip should be
omitted from -next until then.

If instead the plan is to merge it all into 3.8 then -tip should go
into -next as-is.

How's your crystal ball?