linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the tip tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091126092631.GA17253@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:26:31 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the tip tree


* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:

> 11/26/2009 05:12 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Please submit scheduler patches to the scheduler tree. Such level of 
> > refactoring of a critical scheduler component needs to go through the 
> > regular scheduler channels. This is a frequently modified piece of code 
> > and conflicts are likely in the future.
> 
> Sure, which sched/* branch should I base these patches on?

You could send the patch you rely on standalone (it seems to be a single 
patch) and we can look at applying it to the scheduler tree. That 
reduces the conflicts on an ongoing basis. Please Cc: PeterZ and Mike 
Galbraith as well.

Thanks,

	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/