* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> 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-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
