Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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 I think that's possible for 2.6.30 especially with Rusty's "big hammer" patch that removes the definition of cpumask_t. Of course, as has been the delay forever, is dealing with all the arch's. The current method of some via tip, some via linux-next/rr has been somewhat excruciating. How about we push the big ones via -mm so we get more complaints early on? Or some other suggestion? Once the "big hammer" patch is in, there will be massive fallout, and I plan on being on an extended vacation when that happens... ;-) Thanks, Mike -- 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
