From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756428AbYBJEEZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:04:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755866AbYBJEEQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:04:16 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]:43308 "EHLO numenor.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755857AbYBJEEP (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:04:15 -0500 Message-ID: <47AE76B8.6060304@qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:59:52 -0800 From: Max Krasnyansky User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, gregkh@suse.de, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [git pull] CPU isolation extensions (updated) References: <47AE6A8B.6030908@qualcomm.com> <20080209212156.ecc72fee.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080209212156.ecc72fee.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Jackson wrote: > Max wrote: >> Linus, please pull CPU isolation extensions from > > Did I miss something in this discussion? I thought > Ingo was quite clear, and Linus pretty clear too, > that this patch should bake in *-mm or some such > place for a bit first. > Andrew said: > The feature as a whole seems useful, and I don't actually oppose the merge > based on what I see here. As long as you're really sure that cpusets are > inappropriate (and bear in mind that Paul has a track record of being wrong > on this :)). But I see a few glitches .... As far as I can understand Andrew is ok with the merge. And I addressed all his comments. Linus said: > Have these been in -mm and widely discussed etc? I'd like to start more > carefully, and (a) have that controversial last patch not merged initially > and (b) make sure everybody is on the same page wrt this all.. As far as I can understand Linus _asked_ whether it was in -mm or not and whether everybody's on the same page. He did not say "this must be in -mm first". I explained that it has not been in -mm, and who it was discussed with, and did a bunch more testing/investigation on the controversial patch and explained why I think it's not that controversial any more. Ingo said a few different things (a bit too large to quote). - That it was not discussed. I explained that it was in fact discussed and provided a bunch of pointers to the mail threads. - That he thinks that cpuset is the way to do it. Again I explained why it's not. And at the end he said: > Also, i'd not mind some test-coverage in sched.git as well. I far as I know "do not mind" does not mean "must go to" ;-). Also I replied that I did not mind either but I do not think that it has much (if anything) to do with the scheduler. Anyway. I think I mentioned that I did not mind -mm either. I think it's ready for the mainline. But if people still strongly feel that it has to be in -mm that's fine. Lets just do s/Linus/Andrew/ on the first line and move on. But if Linus pulls it now even better ;-) Andrew, Linus, I'll let you guys decide which tree it needs to go. Max