[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120313092649.GA15406@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:26:49 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the
finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback
* Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:56:28AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, you're blaming the wrong person. I got the commit via
> > > a pull, not via a patch.
> >
> > This is the most idiotic excuse I've ever read.
>
> Sod this crap, I'm dropping Catalin's patches. [...]
As I said it in my first mail, doing that is unnecessary - but
if you insist on being difficult then Catalin, feel free to pull
the patch from tip:sched/arch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/arch
HEAD: 01f23e1630 sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback
it's v3.3-rc7 based so it will generate no conflict with
linux-next. It only contains this commit so you can use it
without pulling in other pending scheduler changes.
This is the trivial and easy Git based topic branch approach
PeterZ asked Russell a month ago to consider:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/232
which request Russell sadly ignored.
In any case, Catalin's ARM work is not blocked in any fashion.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists