From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:52:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20120330135255.GC23295@arm.com> References: <20120313092649.GA15406@elte.hu> <20120313095020.GA13220@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313101859.GA2626@elte.hu> <20120313112729.GA25835@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313115640.GA27378@elte.hu> <20120313121707.GA2174@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313124433.GA15333@elte.hu> <20120313130427.GC2174@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313133115.GA21634@elte.hu> <20120313154716.GA31293@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:40142 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758971Ab2C3Nx2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:53:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313154716.GA31293@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Russell King , Linus Torvalds , Stephen Rothwell , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Zijlstra Hi Ingo, On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 03:47:16PM +0000, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Anyway - regardless of any differences and flames about workflow > details, both you and Catalin should still feel free to use both > the original commit (1cf00341547a) or the tip:sched/arch branch > I provided (01f23e1630d9). About the scheduler hook patch, would it go into mainline via the sched/urgent or the sched/arch branch? I would like to rebase the ARM-specific patches on top of one of these branches and send you a pull request (with Russell's ack). Alternatively, I can wait until some 3.4-rc (and merge the ARM patches via Russell). Thanks. -- Catalin