* Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:31:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Borislav, this patch: > > > > From 4581c6313c16a38ffcef8bccd6ffbe9598d585b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@xxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:21:06 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH] x86: provide CPU topology information for multi-node processors > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++ > > arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h | 6 ++++++ > > arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h | 2 ++ > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 2 ++ > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c | 1 + > > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++---- > > 6 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > has absolutely _ZERO_ place in the EDAC tree. It was submitted to > > the x86 tree and was under discussion - i requested changes to it so > > this current form has my NAK. > > I know that, I'm following the discussion. I needed the > functionality in EDAC and that's why I added them _temporarily_ to > the mix so that the whole series (esp. the MCE bits) can see some > testing. Which obviously caught some issues :). > > But I'm very well aware that the patches are not final and they > will go through x86 when done. This is what I told Stephen when > upping them for linux-next. Next time please tell the x86 maintainers too ;-) The thing that was blocking this commit is really the insufficient sched-domains integration of said NUMA bits. I think the NUMA bits look good and if the EDAC tree makes use of it we can merge it in .32. Mind preparing a separate branch for it (.31-rc5 based) and send me a pull request so that we can share the commit between the EDAC tree and the x86 tree? Thanks, 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
