From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932586AbYEHR5d (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 13:57:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765525AbYEHR5L (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 13:57:11 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:28957 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765307AbYEHR5G (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 13:57:06 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5291"; a="2989006" Message-ID: <48233EEB.1010807@qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 10:56:59 -0700 From: Max Krasnyansky User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Paul Jackson , Andrew Morton , menage@google.com, seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, oleg@tv-sign.ru, rostedt@goodmis.org, rientjes@google.com Subject: Re: Reverting per-cpuset "system" (IRQ affinity) patch References: <48210101.1070205@google.com> <20080506183138.546f42d9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080506204054.564fff32.pj@sgi.com> <20080506223859.0b4fa876.pj@sgi.com> <20080506204444.f4c38d0a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080506225228.d42630cf.pj@sgi.com> <1210142681.13978.166.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1210142681.13978.166.camel@twins> 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 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 22:52 -0500, Paul Jackson wrote: >> Andrew wrote: >>> Don't worry about it. I sorted out things locally and I expect that >>> Stephen will be able to as well. >> Ok ... >> >> I hesitate more than I should some times to NAQ patches, >> but the more I think about this one, the less willing I >> am to have a per-cpuset file called "system". >> >> I'm not sure what "sorted out" means ... I'll wait and see. >> >> Thanks, Andrew. >> >> Sorry, Max, Peter and Ingo ... we really had not arrived at >> agreement on this one. > > No problem, I've been meaning to redo this whole series but somehow > stuff got in the way and I never got around to it :-/ I'm actually totally surprised that it got in. Ingo applied Peter's initial patch to his sched-devel tree but then ignored follow up patches with fixes and stuff from me (I'm assuming that was because we started discussion alternative options). Anyway, my vote goes for reverting these series. Max