[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yg3+bAQKVX+Dj317@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 23:51:08 -0800
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Zhen Ni <nizhen@...ontech.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
tangmeng <tangmeng@...ontech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] sched: Move a series of sysctls starting with
sys/kernel/sched_*
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 07:45:56PM +0800, Zhen Ni wrote:
> move a series of sysctls starting with sys/kernel/sched_* and use the
> new register_sysctl_init() to register the sysctl interface.
Peter, Andrew,
I'm starting to get more sysctl patches under kernel/ other than the
scheduler. To avoid low quality patches, try to see proactively what
conflicts may lie ahead, ensure everything is applies on linux-next,
and to ensure all this gets baked through 0-day for a while, I'm
going to shove all pending patches into a sysctl-next branch based on
Linus' tree.
I think it doesn't make sense now to just say, do this for sched for one
release. I think we need to get these more widely tested in a faster
way, and to get conflicts ironed out faster too.
Are you folks OK if say Stephen adds a sysctl-next for linux-next so
we can beat on these there too?
FWIW queued on sysctl-next [0].
[0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=sysctl-next
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists