linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 14

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]

Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:24:05 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:15:36 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> 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?

If this new code is targeted at 3.9 as I'm suggesting then it should go
into -next after 3.8-rc1, so the sched/numa part of -tip should be
omitted from -next until then.

If instead the plan is to merge it all into 3.8 then -tip should go
into -next as-is.

How's your crystal ball?
--
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/