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: <20091126095154.GE32275@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:51:54 +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:

> Hello, Ingo.
> 
> 11/26/2009 06:26 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> The tree contains four scheduler patches.
> 
> 0001-sched-rename-preempt_notifier-to-sched_notifier-and-.patch
> 0002-sched-update-sched_notifier-and-add-wakeup-sleep-not.patch
> 0003-sched-implement-sched_notifier_wake_up_process.patch
> 0004-sched-implement-force_cpus_allowed.patch
> 
> 1, 2 and 4 are somewhat spread throughout sched.c so it would be
> better if they all are routed through sched tree.  Currently the
> wq#for-sched contains the followings on top of linus#master.
> 
> * Adds debugobj support to workqueue.
> 
> * Pulls in sched/urgent to receive the scheduler fix.
> 
> * Adds the above four patches.
> 
> If pulling in from the existing branch is an option, I'd prefer that. 
> If not, please let me know.  I'll send the above four patches against 
> sched/urgent.

I've merged sched/urgent into sched/core and pushed it out - mind basing 
any sched.c patches on top of that and send a series of scheduler-only 
patches?

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/