* Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:07:39PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > 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? > > Well, Andreas says the patches need a little polishing and he'll > be sending updated versions soon so you can pick them up. And > since the EDAC MCE stuff might still change before .32 merge > window opens, let's synchronize our pull requests instead. In the > meantime, I'll be rediffing the EDAC stuff against -tip for > linux-next. Would you rebase just due to this commit? No need for that, feel free to carry it until Andreas sends an updated version. Then i can put it into a separate .31-rc5 based topic that you can pull into the EDAC tree. That way there are no rebases really and no dependencies. 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
