[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091127070254.GA1547@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:02:54 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 tip/sched/core] sched: rename preempt_notifier to
sched_notifier and always enable it
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Please send all sched.c modifications via the scheduler tree. Going
> > via other trees is fine when there's agreement by the maintainers -
> > but this is one of the rare cases where that's not the case.
>
> Yeah, sure. So, two patchsets. One for sched/core doing pure
> reorganization without any functional changes. The other for
> sched/notifier (or whatever name you would prefer) which is purely for
> development and testing and will not be pushed to Linus unless it
> receives notifier framework cleanup. wq#for-next will pull from
> sched/notifier and be exported to linux-next but it will never be
> submitted to Linus until sched/notifier is cleaned up. Am I
> understanding it correctly?
Yeah, that would be fine.
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