[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121114181536.3ec35e5ec622e7eaec791e00@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:15:36 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 14
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:56:35 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:47:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > It would help if the old sched/numa code wasn't in -next while
> > > you're away. That would give me a clean run at 3.7 and will
> > > make it easier for others to integrate and test the four(!)
> > > different autoschednumacore implementations on top of
> > > linux-next.
> > >
> > > Pretty please?
> >
> > The next integration should have this solved: I have removed the
> > old sched/numa bits, replaced by the latest rebased/reworked
> > numa/core bits.
>
> That solves one problem, but I still need to route around the numa
> stuff when preparing the 3.8-rc1 merge. Again!
I am not sure what is actually involved here, but would it help if I
made you a new akpm-base with the old tip tree replaced by the new one
that Ingo just pushed out? Or are there still problematic things in the
tip tree?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists