From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:45:54 +1000 Message-ID: <200807041045.54623.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20080703150328.44061d16.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080703180729.1f6b8620.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080703081906.GB22246@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:44072 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754070AbYGDAp7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:45:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080703081906.GB22246@elte.hu> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 03 July 2008 18:19:06 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > The "home tree" of the commit is > > > tip/sched/new-API-sched_setscheduler, and that's integrated to the > > > auto-sched-next branch. If there's any update to the patch we should > > > iterate it there. > > > > That would be a question for Rusty. He may be able to split out the > > conflicting part of his simplification patch and send it to you. But > > it may not be worth it. > > should be all OK as long as Rusty sends his patches to Linus after the > -tip changes go upstream. (in that case the base patch will fall out of > Rusty's Quilt queue naturally, leaving the followup change.) That's the plan. I'm still testing the stop_machine changes though: it's simpler, but seems to have increased latency slightly. If I was completely sure I'd just shuffle it to Ingo. Cheers, Rusty.