[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090610204318.GA8147@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:43:18 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mpm@...enic.com,
npiggin@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31
* Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> 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
--
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