* Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Monday 05 January 2009 23:17:45 Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> That would allow Mike, Christoph and you to work this out cleanly from > >> scratch. It would also solve your merge conflict. > >> > >> Does that sound like a good solution? > > > > Sure, but it won't make this window. I guess since those patches > > don't do anything but lay groundwork it's not critical, but annoying > > they've lain fallow so long. > > > > I'm happy to put them with the cpualloc patches, since they're related > > and going to conflict, but I still want to see if Mike has the rest of > > them? > > I do. And really, as soon as the cpus4096 is safely set for 2.6.29 I > can devote much more time on it. I think the complete elimination of cpumask_t should be the primary priority - before jumping to any other aspect. If we dont get rid of it it will stick around forever, like the BKL. It was a nice migration helper but now it's time to wave goodbye? :) Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
