From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:19:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20090106131908.GB15228@elte.hu> References: <20090105143239.08b1a060.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <200901051727.11403.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20090105124745.GC29758@elte.hu> <200901061921.49131.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <496358F8.30308@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:52236 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751853AbZAFNTi (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:19:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <496358F8.30308@sgi.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mike Travis Cc: Rusty Russell , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" * Mike Travis 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