Hello, Ingo. 11/26/2009 06:26 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> Sure, which sched/* branch should I base these patches on? > > You could send the patch you rely on standalone (it seems to be a single > patch) and we can look at applying it to the scheduler tree. That > reduces the conflicts on an ongoing basis. Please Cc: PeterZ and Mike > Galbraith as well. The tree contains four scheduler patches. 0001-sched-rename-preempt_notifier-to-sched_notifier-and-.patch 0002-sched-update-sched_notifier-and-add-wakeup-sleep-not.patch 0003-sched-implement-sched_notifier_wake_up_process.patch 0004-sched-implement-force_cpus_allowed.patch 1, 2 and 4 are somewhat spread throughout sched.c so it would be better if they all are routed through sched tree. Currently the wq#for-sched contains the followings on top of linus#master. * Adds debugobj support to workqueue. * Pulls in sched/urgent to receive the scheduler fix. * Adds the above four patches. If pulling in from the existing branch is an option, I'd prefer that. If not, please let me know. I'll send the above four patches against sched/urgent. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
