* Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I've merged sched/urgent into sched/core and pushed it out - mind basing any sched.c patches on top of that and send a series of scheduler-only patches? 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
