[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140314083652.GA22913@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:36:52 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Archs <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Huiqingding <huding@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] timers updates for 3.15
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> So I propose you something even more simple. The choice of
> tip:timers/core as a base was actually just about topic. But there
> is no dependency on it. (And actually sched/core would have been a
> better choice for a base if any).
>
> So in order to fix the conflict and minimize the dependencies, I
> just rebased the patches on top of tip:core/locking only. No merge
> on top of that. It seems to work pretty well.
>
> The pullable result is in sched/cputime on my tree. Let me know if
> that's ok for you.
Yeah, that sounds excellent. Thomas, you might want to keep this in a
sparate branch from timers/core though. We still have timers/nohz for
example.
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