From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761290AbZFJUnm (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:43:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758037AbZFJUnf (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:43:35 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:43557 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755440AbZFJUnf (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:43:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:43:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mpm@selenic.com, npiggin@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31 Message-ID: <20090610204318.GA8147@elte.hu> References: <4A3017D1.5010708@cs.helsinki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A3017D1.5010708@cs.helsinki.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Pekka Enberg wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > >>> I already have patches for that but they are against the -tip >>> tree so I think we ought to just merge this series to mainline >>> and fix everything up in subsystem trees for 2.6.31 proper. >> >> Hmm. Are there any reasons why the scheduler fixups can't go in >> this series? Do they depend on other things in -tip? > > The patches are rebased to -tip, yeah. I can do a version against > your tree if you want but that will mean merge conflicts for Ingo. > Hmm? I'm a tiny bit nervous about the tested-ness of the patches. Such stuff rarely works at first try. But it's obviously nice changes. What kind of conflicts are there against -tip? The diffstat suggests it's mostly in-SLAB code, right? There shouldnt be much to conflict, except kmemcheck - which has more or less trivial callbacks there. Ingo