[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z8c_xWrk-kanKgOQ@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 08:00:37 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Juntong Deng <juntong.deng@...look.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com,
andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com,
song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, kpsingh@...nel.org,
sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
memxor@...il.com, void@...ifault.com, arighi@...dia.com,
changwoo@...lia.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.15 v3 2/5] sched_ext: Declare
context-sensitive kfunc groups that can be used by different SCX operations
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 09:12:52PM +0000, Juntong Deng wrote:
> > Can you merge this into the next patch? I don't think separating this out
> > helps with reviewing.
> >
>
> Yes, I can merge them in the next version.
>
> I am not sure, but it seems to me that the two patches are doing
> different things?
I don't know. It can be argued either way but it's more that the table added
by the first patch is not used in the first patch and the second patch is
difficult to review without referring to the table added in the first patch.
It can be either way but I don't see benefits of them being separate
patches.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists