[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080509102237.GE19617@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 12:22:37 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, menage@...gle.com,
seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...sign.ru, rostedt@...dmis.org,
rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: Reverting per-cpuset "system" (IRQ affinity) patch
* Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote:
> > 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).
yes, there's been a lot of back and forth.
Paul/Peter/Max, what's the current agreed-upon approach to merge these
physical resource isolation features into cpusets intelligently while
still keeping the whole thing as usable and practical to down-to-earth
sysadmins as possible? That is the issue that is blocking this whole
topic from progressing.
> Anyway, my vote goes for reverting these series.
none of this is upstream yet (nor is any of this even near to being
ready for upstream), so there's nothing to revert.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists