linux-next: testing of new cpumask API introduction patch

linux-next: testing of new cpumask API introduction patch

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 635 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today I have temporarily dropped the cpus4096 tree from linux-next in
order to integrate and test Rusty's API introducing only patch.  Linus has
said he will consider this patch for 2.6.28 if it is very contained and
has no net effect - which is what it looks like (having reviewed the
patch).

Of course, if Linus' takes Rusty's patch, it will mean significant
changes for the cpus4096 tree and this may be one case where rebasing the
tree makes sense.  But we should burn that bridge when we come to it.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: testing of new cpumask API introduction patch

[Ingo Molnar]

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today I have temporarily dropped the cpus4096 tree from linux-next 
> in order to integrate and test Rusty's API introducing only patch.  
> Linus has said he will consider this patch for 2.6.28 if it is very 
> contained and has no net effect - which is what it looks like 
> (having reviewed the patch).
> 
> Of course, if Linus' takes Rusty's patch, it will mean significant 
> changes for the cpus4096 tree and this may be one case where 
> rebasing the tree makes sense.  But we should burn that bridge when 
> we come to it.

Rusty, could you please send a patch that introduces the new header on 
the cpus4096 tree, without killing all the stuff that's tested in 
there?

	Ingo

Re: linux-next: testing of new cpumask API introduction patch

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> > Today I have temporarily dropped the cpus4096 tree from linux-next 
> > in order to integrate and test Rusty's API introducing only patch.  
> > Linus has said he will consider this patch for 2.6.28 if it is 
> > very contained and has no net effect - which is what it looks like 
> > (having reviewed the patch).
> > 
> > Of course, if Linus' takes Rusty's patch, it will mean significant 
> > changes for the cpus4096 tree and this may be one case where 
> > rebasing the tree makes sense.  But we should burn that bridge 
> > when we come to it.
> 
> Rusty, could you please send a patch that introduces the new header 
> on the cpus4096 tree, without killing all the stuff that's tested in 
> there?

Stephen, could you please re-pickup the cpus4096 branch and drop the 
out-of-flow patch (which is the same patch)? I've added Rusty's patch 
and disabled the topic that had the other, more intrusive changes - 
and started testing it.

	Ingo