[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111219152409.3a2c213e@de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:24:09 +0100
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:25:47 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> > > All of it including "[S390] cputime: add sparse checking and
> > > cleanup" or just the fix for uptime ?
> >
> > I suspect we can take it all if it's all scheduling/time
> > related, and add new patches to sched/core to keep it all
> > concentrated in a single tree?
>
> Btw., i'd suggest to keep your commits as-is and merge
> tip:sched/core into your tree - and send the result to me so
> that we can make that the new sched/core.
>
> That way your commits are preserved and the conflicts are
> resolved.
Just did that and pushed out the result on
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git cputime-tip
Pulling either the original tip sched/core branch or the cputime-tip branch
to an up-to-date repository fails by the way, it gives a conflict in
kernel/sched/fair.c.
And then there is the thing with cpustat being u64. It really should be
cputime64_t. How do you want that resolved, I assume an additional patch
on top?
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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