Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree

[Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> On Monday 05 January 2009 23:17:45 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> That would allow Mike, Christoph and you to work this out cleanly from 
>>>> scratch. It would also solve your merge conflict.
>>>>
>>>> Does that sound like a good solution?
>>> Sure, but it won't make this window.  I guess since those patches 
>>> don't do anything but lay groundwork it's not critical, but annoying 
>>> they've lain fallow so long.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to put them with the cpualloc patches, since they're related 
>>> and going to conflict, but I still want to see if Mike has the rest of 
>>> them?
>> I do.  And really, as soon as the cpus4096 is safely set for 2.6.29 I 
>> can devote much more time on it.
> 
> I think the complete elimination of cpumask_t should be the primary 
> priority - before jumping to any other aspect. If we dont get rid of it it 
> will stick around forever, like the BKL. It was a nice migration helper 
> but now it's time to wave goodbye? :)
> 
> 	Ingo

I think that's possible for 2.6.30 especially with Rusty's "big hammer"
patch that removes the definition of cpumask_t.  Of course, as has been
the delay forever, is dealing with all the arch's.  The current method
of some via tip, some via linux-next/rr has been somewhat excruciating.
How about we push the big ones via -mm so we get more complaints early on?

Or some other suggestion?  Once the "big hammer" patch is in, there will
be massive fallout, and I plan on being on an extended vacation when that
happens... ;-)

Thanks,
Mike