* Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Sure, can do it via -mm or via -tip/cpus4096. > 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... ;-) hm, on a second thought, lets do it via -mm only ;-) 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
