[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A302075.7060501@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:07:01 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
Hi Ingo,
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> The conflicting bits are the patches that remove bootmem
>>> allocator uses in arch/x86 and kernel/sched.c.
>> Give me an hour and i'll get some minimal testing done.
>
> This tree doesnt conflict (not even with kmecheck) - and the older
> bits you sent against the scheduler and against x86 doesnt apply
> anymore - but they do look scary.
Btw, yeah, it doesn't conflict because I dropped the problematic patches
and did the bootmem fallback instead.
But now you know why I tried to push all this to -tip. Your tree is
moving so fast that it's difficult to generate patches that apply to
both, -tip and mainline, in this particular area :-).
Pekka
--
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