From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:34:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:34:25 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:63506 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:34:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_cpus_allowed() for 2.4 From: Robert Love To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Alan Cox , "Martin J. Bligh" , marcelo@connectiva.com.br, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20021202223800.A24773@infradead.org> References: <20021202192652.A25938@sgi.com> <1919608311.1038822649@[10.10.2.3]> <20021202201101.A26164@sgi.com> <1038869248.8945.18.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20021202223800.A24773@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1038868912.869.60.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 02 Dec 2002 17:41:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 17:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 10:47:28PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Ingo vetoed it. > > > > I wasnt aware Ingo had a veto > > It's not exactly considered nice to merge code against the intention > of it's author. (which doesn't mean it's impossible, of course) Ingo did explicitly mention he thought the O(1) scheduler was not 2.4 material. Whether this has changed, e.g. due to stabilization of the scheduler, I do not know. But I do recall he had an opinion in the past. Robert Love