From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, gregkh@suse.de, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [git pull] CPU isolation extensions (updated)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:59:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47AE76B8.6060304@qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080209212156.ecc72fee.pj@sgi.com>
Paul Jackson wrote:
> Max wrote:
>> Linus, please pull CPU isolation extensions from
>
> Did I miss something in this discussion? I thought
> Ingo was quite clear, and Linus pretty clear too,
> that this patch should bake in *-mm or some such
> place for a bit first.
>
Andrew said:
> The feature as a whole seems useful, and I don't actually oppose the merge
> based on what I see here. As long as you're really sure that cpusets are
> inappropriate (and bear in mind that Paul has a track record of being wrong
> on this :)). But I see a few glitches ....
As far as I can understand Andrew is ok with the merge. And I addressed all
his comments.
Linus said:
> Have these been in -mm and widely discussed etc? I'd like to start more
> carefully, and (a) have that controversial last patch not merged initially
> and (b) make sure everybody is on the same page wrt this all..
As far as I can understand Linus _asked_ whether it was in -mm or not and whether
everybody's on the same page. He did not say "this must be in -mm first".
I explained that it has not been in -mm, and who it was discussed with, and did a
bunch more testing/investigation on the controversial patch and explained why I think
it's not that controversial any more.
Ingo said a few different things (a bit too large to quote).
- That it was not discussed. I explained that it was in fact discussed and provided
a bunch of pointers to the mail threads.
- That he thinks that cpuset is the way to do it. Again I explained why it's not.
And at the end he said:
> Also, i'd not mind some test-coverage in sched.git as well.
I far as I know "do not mind" does not mean "must go to" ;-). Also I replied that
I did not mind either but I do not think that it has much (if anything) to do with
the scheduler.
Anyway. I think I mentioned that I did not mind -mm either. I think it's ready for
the mainline. But if people still strongly feel that it has to be in -mm that's fine.
Lets just do s/Linus/Andrew/ on the first line and move on. But if Linus pulls it now
even better ;-)
Andrew, Linus, I'll let you guys decide which tree it needs to go.
Max
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-10 4:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-10 3:07 [git pull] CPU isolation extensions (updated) Max Krasnyansky
2008-02-10 3:21 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-10 3:59 ` Max Krasnyansky [this message]
2008-02-13 10:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-13 17:18 ` Max Krasnyansky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47AE76B8.6060304@qualcomm.com \
--to=maxk@qualcomm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.