[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090804135029.GA6775@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:50:29 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Cc: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Boot failure on x86_64 (OOPS set_cpu_sibling_map() )
* Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:07:39PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The thing that was blocking this commit is really the insufficient
> > sched-domains integration of said NUMA bits. I think the NUMA bits
> > look good and if the EDAC tree makes use of it we can merge it in
> > .32.
> >
> > Mind preparing a separate branch for it (.31-rc5 based) and send me
> > a pull request so that we can share the commit between the EDAC tree
> > and the x86 tree?
>
> Well, Andreas says the patches need a little polishing and he'll
> be sending updated versions soon so you can pick them up. And
> since the EDAC MCE stuff might still change before .32 merge
> window opens, let's synchronize our pull requests instead. In the
> meantime, I'll be rediffing the EDAC stuff against -tip for
> linux-next.
Would you rebase just due to this commit? No need for that, feel
free to carry it until Andreas sends an updated version. Then i can
put it into a separate .31-rc5 based topic that you can pull into
the EDAC tree.
That way there are no rebases really and no dependencies.
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