[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140702084758.48cb352f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 08:47:58 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pavel@....cz, jirislaby@...il.com,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>, Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: kGraft to -next [was: 00/21 kGraft]
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 08:30:02 -0400
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:04:38PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 06/25/2014 01:05 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> ...
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jirislaby/kgraft.git/log/?h=kgraft
> >
> > Stephen,
> >
> > may I ask you to add the kGraft tree to -next?
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jirislaby/kgraft.git#kgraft
>
> Do we have consensus on the approach? I personally really don't like
> the fact that it's adding another aspect to kthread management which
> is difficult to get right and nearly impossible to verify
> automatically.
>
> IIUC, there are three similar solutions. What are the pros and cons
> of each? Can we combine the different approaches?
Has this been agreed on to be accepted yet? I don't believe so.
linux-next is for code that will be going into the next release of the
kernel. Not for developmental code or code that is still being
discussed.
-- 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