[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1367542669.7373.10.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 20:57:49 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] sched: Distangle worker accounting from rq->lock
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 17:12 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 06:47:10PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:37:22AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > [ Blast from the past! ]
> > >
> > > When merging in 3.4.42 into the 3.4-rt branch I hit a conflict with the
> > > try_to_wake_up_local() call. It seems that the 3.4-rt patch has this
> > > patch applied. Although, this is not applied to any of the other -rt patches.
> > >
> >
> > I take that back. It's in 3.0-rt, 3.2-rt and 3.4-rt, but it's not in 3.6-rt
> > nor in 3.8-rt.
>
> So, it's all good? Or is there something I need to look into?
It looks good to me. I don't know why it's not in 3.6-rt or 3.8-rt. Was
there a reason that Thomas took it out? I don't know. Maybe it's not
needed or he thought it went mainline?
-- Steve
--
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